@spendius,
Sympathetic may not be the best word to describe his understanding of The T.E.A. Party movement.
Not meaning to beat a dead horse, but here are the BLS' numbers that drove the final nail into the coffin of a social security COLA increase for 2011. (Stop with the metaphors, RJB.)
The mandated measure used for almost 20 years has been the CPI-W index for July-August-September of the prior year.
For 2008, the average index for the 3rd quarter was 215.495. That was up significantly over 2007, so retirees got a relatively large increase in 2009.
In 2009, when the recession took hold, the index fell to 211.001 so there was no COLA for 2010. Congress and the President did approve a one-time $250 payment to each retiree.
In 2010, with the data out today, the index stands at 214.136. That is up from last year but below 2008. Hence, again there be no COLA for 2011.
Congress could consider another $250 payment. That would equate, for me, to a 1.7% bonus.
Bernanke has been suggesting that the "appropriate" level of inflation is 2% per year. If we achieve that, the index next year would be at 218.419 which would, relative to 2009, result in a COLA for 2012 of 1.36%.
Shredding this file, now, until next year.
@H2O MAN,
Quote:Sympathetic may not be the best word to describe his understanding of The T.E.A. Party movement.
I think it should be "Tea". It takes its name from the Boston Tea Party. No tax without representation. I suppose it is supported by people who pay taxes but don't feel they are being represented.
Is that not right? It cant be Terrific Escape from Alaska can it?
These Bob Dylan lyrics are interesting. I like the Obama's National Exports Iniciative, it is an opportunity for change. With such advanced technology and skilled forces, there is plenty of work to be done by the American people. Also saving some money by not importing so much oil. I think that by setting a reduced internal allowance of gas per capita would push people into learning how to live with less. If the strategy for economy growth in the 20th century was to incentivate consumption, then now it's time to do the opposite...
@superjuly,
Consumers won't like that sj. Hairshirters are very thin on the ground in the US.
@H2O MAN,
Here is this story, indicating a 1.3 Trillion deficit for the second year, and predicting an even larger deficit next year. Sheesh, thats around 4 trillion in debt to be racked up in just 3 of the 4 years of Obama's presidency.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/15/government-set-announce-second-year-trillion-plus-deficit/
"Obama Administration Announces Second Year of $1.3 Trillion Deficit
Published October 15, 2010 FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration announced Friday it has exceeded the $1 trillion mark in the federal deficit -- predicted by Congress' research arm last week as $1.29 trillion -- for the second straight year as it projects an even larger gap between revenues and spending for fiscal year 2011. "
@okie,
Yeah, that's what happens when you have to clean up the mess left by the last guys. It isn't pretty.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
How many more years are you going to be blaming Bush, cyclops? Your talking points are getting pretty stale. Which Soros organization do you get the talking points from, Moveon.org, America Coming Together, or which one?
@okie,
Are you back reciting your same crap okie? I thought you were leaving, but I guess you don't even have the decency to tell the truth about that.
@spendius,
There could be voting or the use of mass media to re-program cultural habits.
@okie,
okie wrote:
How many more years are you going to be blaming Bush, cyclops?
Several more. Several. Because the problems he created are going to last that long, Okie! It's still perfectly valid to blame the person who created the problems that you are STILL DEALING with.
Quote:Your talking points are getting pretty stale. Which Soros organization do you get the talking points from, Moveon.org, America Coming Together, or which one?
I don't get 'talking points' from anyone. I've never been a part of or given money to any Dem organization (other than the party itself). I make my own judgments, and in this case, I - like most Americans - am judging that we are still wading through the pile of **** left by the last bunch, by the leaders of YOUR party - not mine.
Be honest - you decided to place blame on Obama for the financial crisis way before he even got elected. I remember you doing it! You had your talking points in place months in advance, so if anyone's line is stale, it's yours, man.
Cycloptichorn
@spendius,
Taxed
Enough
Already
with a Boston Tea Party twist.
@superjuly,
superjuly wrote:
I think that by setting a reduced internal allowance of gas per capita would push people into learning how to live with less. If the strategy for economy growth in the 20th century was to incentivate consumption, then now it's time to do the opposite...
Good evening, Superjuly. Welcome to this thread. We (a small group) tend to repeat ourselves here a lot, saying the same things over and over again.
I note that you have been on A2K for some 6 years.
Again, welcome. Make your arguments. -realjohnboy
@parados,
parados wrote:
Are you back reciting your same crap okie? I thought you were leaving, but I guess you don't even have the decency to tell the truth about that.
I am reciting the same old truths to counter your same old crap, along with cyclops same old crap, that he posts part of the time on a taxpayer funded computer.
If you could read and had an honest bone in your body, you would have known and acknowledged that I never said I was leaving for good. I said I was about to give up on this forum completely, and that I was taking the afternoon off. I did not say I was in fact giving up on the forum, or had given up on the forum. I probably should give up on it, as I have concluded it is dominated mostly by extremist and radical liberals that apparently don't have much else to do but spend most of their days here, wasting time posting silly opinions. Cyclops does some of his on taxpayer supported computer in a taxpayer supported office, and doesn't have the sense to see that it is a slight conflict of interest. I wonder how many other libs are doing the same thing? There are a few people here trying to talk reason, but I have yet to see any of the politically liberal opposition ever admit they were all wet or wrong on anything, and then switch sides. Not yet anyway. The only thing that keeps me here is to blow off steam a little and hope that a liberal here or there might someday see the error of their ways and beliefs.
@okie,
It's also worth pointing out that the deficit is 122 billion dollars lower than last year; and that this is the biggest drop that has ever occurred year-over-year in deficit spending. Not that you give a **** about facts like that.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
But how much does the drop amount to in terms of percentage, cyclops? That would be another way to look at it. For example if you reduce a deficit from 1422 billion or 1.422 trillion down to 1.3 trillion or 1300 trillion, that is only an 8.5% reduction. If you reduced a deficit 122 billion from 244 billion to 122 billion, that would be a 50% reduction.
The point I am making here is that a partisan can choose the best terminology and figure comparisons to try to put the best face onto a really bad financial situation.
@okie,
okie wrote:
But how much does the drop amount to in terms of percentage, cyclops? That would be another way to look at it. For example if you reduce a deficit from 1422 billion or 1.422 trillion down to 1.3 trillion or 1300 trillion, that is only an 8.5% reduction. If you reduced a deficit 122 billion from 244 billion to 122 billion, that would be a 50% reduction.
The point I am making here is that a partisan can choose the best terminology and figure comparisons to try to put the best face onto a really bad financial situation.
Nobody said it was a good situation, but it's the one we are in - thanks to in large part the incompetence of the former management, and more importantly, the failure of their ideologies.
Since you asked, in terms of percentage of reduction, it is 11%. Which isn't bad, though of course the overall situation is bad. But if I were to ask you if the budget deficit were lower this year than it was when Obama took office, you would be forced to admit that yes, it was lower.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
How do you get 11% with a reduction of 122 billion? My calculator indicates that would be starting with a 1.098 trillion deficit the year prior, and I thought it was much higher, like about 1.7 trillion or so?
@okie,
okie wrote:
How do you get 11% with a reduction of 122 billion? My calculator indicates that would be starting with a 1.098 trillion deficit the year prior, and I thought it was much higher, like about 1.7 trillion or so?
The deficit for FY 2009 was 1.4 trillion, not 1.098 trillion. 122 is around 11% of that.
Cycloptichorn
@okie,
Quote:2010 Federal Budget Deficit Over $1 Trillion
It's about $3,300 each I think. The price of a dirty weekend in Vegas.
Or £2,100- a dirty weekend in Paris in a MOR hotel.
Takes onion from pocket, peels it and rubs it into eyes.
The most pampered, cosseted and managed population in the known history of the universe have their pips squeaking. AaaaaaH !!
