"The $250 payments would also go to those receiving veterans benefits, disability benefits, railroad retirees and public employee retirees who don't receive Social Security."

But the Obama Team is split on whether or not to include a friendly -- and personally signed! -- Presidential Caution to those receiving this staggeringly generous windfall reminding them: "Don't spend it all in one place!" ... along with the standard plea for a re-election donation.

I mean, hey -- who loves ya, baby?

Yes, you will receive a check for $250.00 and then you are expected to quickly die so that the younger people will have medical coverage. Don't forget to declare the $250.00 as income on your tax return. Sara Palin was right about the death panels.

I'm glad this is considered good news! Most finance blogs share the cynicism and skepticism of the above commenters. Value judgments aside, I shared this view that the COLA increase was out of the question because it was tied to core CPI, however when we look at the actual comparison (http://www.bls.gov/data/#prices Series CUUR0000SA0 vs. Series CUUR0000SA0L1E) we see that overall prices, represented by regular CPI-U (including food & fuel) actually changed by -1.28% (deflation). While the core inflation numbers, CPI-U/Less Food and Energy show an increase of 1.51% (inflation). Therefore if the SSA, as you seem to advocate, were to reject core CPI for standard CPI-U there would be a strong argument that the COLA (cost of living ADJUSTMENT) should be in the downward direction, decreasing people's social security payouts. The logic being that true inflation (with food and fuel included) is negative, showing that prices are decreasing in the marketplace, meaning that people need less money to live on. Now anyone who knows people (especially low-income) who rely on social security realize that would be crazy, so maybe sticking with core CPI isn't so bad after all. At they aren't talking about a cost of living DECREASE. Be careful what you wish for...

"No matter how cynical you get, you just can't keep up."

-- Molly Ivins

Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

"Economics without sociology is almost skeletal; especially since becoming mathematiized it has lost contact with the real world."

-- Kenneth Boulding

"Knowledge alone is not enough. It must be leavened with magnanimity before it becomes wisdom."

-- Adlai Stevenson

When first posted the OVERWHELMING RESPONSE was completly NEGATIVE.....Obama can give Pakistan 7.2, but shaft the men and women who built this country....give ILLEGALS money, medical, and food stamps but again, shaft our own people....he needs to be impeached, and NOW....along with his motly crew of Democrats that have been in power in congress for the last three years....TRILLIONS in DEPT....Social Security has been handled by no better then Madoffs.....Get them OUT

Trillions in DEBT from wars started by the previous administration. 1.5 Trillion to be exact. How much of THAT do you think went to Pakistan under the Bush admin? More than 7.5 billion, thats for sure. You can't get food stamps unless you've been working in the US for 5 yrs or 40 quarters (usda.gov). The point is that dropping core CPI as a peg for COLA would result in a social security DECREASE, which we all seem to agree, is a bad idea. No one has responded to that point, including clickdawg.

Less --

All you have convincingly stated (using numbers that can be spun, interpreted, and even reported to suit the agenda of a government no one trusts anymore) is that "there would be a strong argument that the COLA should be in the downward direction". Nothing more, despite your second post which suddenly states a drop in SS is a positively done deal in eliminating core CPI as a peg.

Bottom Line: The government will help or harm whoever it wants whenever it wants no matter what is theoretically tied to what -- and I do not see this government helping anyone besides its fat-cat cronies on any meaningful level.

Try looking beyond Democrats and Republicans (and the personalties selected to front them) and you might just get a glimpse of what's really going on around here.

Clik, all i set out to do was point out that replacing core CPI with CPI-U would IMPLY a drop in SSA payments, i never asserted it is a "done deal", but the fact that you find it convincingly stated is a nice compliment. Also you quoted my first comment trying to prove that it was an idea first introduced in the second comment...nice logic. The first comment was directed at Ms. Madon who believes (mistakenly, in my opinion) that "The problem with COLA is that it is calculated on the basis of "core CPI"..[and]..food and energy have been two areas where the biggest increases in living costs can be found." These two arguments together are simply untrue, inflation including food and fuel is negative.

Furthermore, regardless of the accuracy of the measure, switching inflation metrics would not strengthen the argument for an increase in SSA payments. Whether or not these numbers are "spun, interpreted, and even reported to suit the agenda of a government no one trusts anymore" they ARE used to determine payments, so for our purposes their accuracy is irrelevant. What is relevant is their actual values and the policy implications of rejecting one set of (potentially inaccurate) numbers for another set of (equally inaccurate) numbers, compared to the stated goals of the article's author (presumably increasing social security payments).

On the subject of partisanship, if the statement "the Obama Team is split on whether or not to include a friendly -- and personally signed! -- Presidential Caution ... along with the standard plea for a re-election donation." is not a failure to "Try looking beyond Democrats and Republicans (and the personalities selected to front them)" i can't imagine what is. I mean come on, that is just ridiculously hypocritical. Adding to the egregiousness of your position is the fact that strictly speaking we are not even discussing a partisan issue, it is a question of whether there was no COLA increase this year because the SSA uses core-CPI, which is a dry and boring issue technically unrelated to party politics (yeah head of the BLS is a nice juicy cabinet position, up there with Secs of state and treasury.)
I agree that our federal govt is elitist and dominated by special interests and this absolutely needs to change, but railing against govt assistance for old people is no way to change things. This is the system we currently have to work with, and for the millions of elderly people (a few of which are not fat-cat cronies, you may know some, such as your parents or grandparents) who depend on SSA for food and shelter we must examine our options and find the best solution within the system. This is not a failure to recognize "what's really going on around here" but rather taking a pragmatic approach to a very real problem. I agree that $250 is not very much, and a COLA comparable to previous years (especially last yr.) would be desirable, however without a COLA it turns out that medicare part B premiums would be frozen for many individuals (http://www.kff.org/medicare/7912.cfm) possibly offsetting the loss of COLA, but increasing medicaid costs for the states. Yikes.
Also i agree with the Boulding quote, but when the sociologist says "everyone needs housing, healthcare and income support" and the economist says "ok, time for us to all contribute our share" who gets applause and who gets burned in effigy?

Less --

Nice to converse with an intelligent human being.

First: I am an equal opportunity cynic; spent eight years writing the same sorts of flippant comments about Bush -- in fact, judging solely by actual performance, I find I could with the greatest of ease recycle most of those comments with the mere substitution of the name "Obama" for that of "Bush".

Second: As long as our government "is elitist and dominated by special interests" discussing details of whatever current plan is afoot to rape the taxpaying population is futile -- believe it when I say that they will do whatever they want using the flimsiest of quasi-legal arguments to do so.

"Height of hypocrisy"? " ...railing against govt assistance for old people ... "? Only in your imagination. But if you want to improve the caretaking mechanism for those people, you will not accomplish it by sanctioning a drop-in-the-bucket sop to America's waning sense of conscience when what is required is a redirection of the public money which is now being poured into the pockets of (I really must insist, unpleasant though it sounds) the gamblers and pimps which now infest our public life.

The current blizzard of self-contradictory economic jargon being currently launched is nothing more than eyewash, friend; to be used when money is to be diverted to cronies and abandoned when any other purpose is proposed. Don't believe me? Stick around ...

You radically simplify the ramifications of the Boulding quote. A sociologist (you might give us an actual example) who claims that the inequalities in housing, medical care and income in our society can best be addressed by redistribution from the productive sector to the non-productive sector ignores the fact that the funds obtained under that high-sounding argument rarely find their way to those that need it, but are mysteriously absorbed somewhere along the line, or applied in ways which exacerbate the original problem.

Governmental practice rarely matches governmental theory; what you get is seldom what you are sold.

Until this country rights itself morally, spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally; until it recovers its sense of self and its sense of unified purpose; until it stops trusting those who should in no wise be trusted because they look good on TV -- until, in short, it gets its head out of its ass, you or I or the government of the Untied States cannot successfully even define remediable problems, let alone successfully redress them.

Which is why I content myself (for the time being) with the very occasional wry comment on this site -- the problem we face is systemic, not symptomatic, and when enough people have had enough of the system things may actually change ... but not because some media-created demi-god (as concerned as any other politician with his own little power-trip) says they're gonna.

Yes ,gas is down. food is up . my husband chesk got cut by $48.00 prescriptions went from $ 20.00 to $50.00 >have 3 only come in name bran, my husband has 2 only in name brand . Yes we could use the $250.00 real bad. How about a $50.00 raise each month would be much better.Do you all realize how far $250.00 go. co-pays @ the Dr. office .robbing peter to pay paul .You all think gas is all we need to live off . + I have ( 4 ) over the counter meds ,spouse has (2)+ we have to eat , bread is $2.50/ $3.00 a loaf. We need a raise every year. Why don't some of u decesion makers live off what we live on .

Ok people don't hold your breath's for this $ 250.00's for people on Social Security and the disabled and veterans and other's that are in this group, cause as sure as you do no one will get it, to many of the rich are not going to let that happen if they have their way about it. Am affraid we all may turn blue waiting. Don't get me wrong would be great if we do get but just feel we won't.

I fully belive that all Social Security retire's at age 65 and above should get the $250.00 every month for the rest of our live's, just maybe it would help us think that life is still worth living when WE could go splurge and go out to dinner once a month, as of now we cannot go out for dinner at anytime during the year.