"I live on $710.00 a month, what exactly am I supposed to cut?"

[kpete]

FRI APR 05, 2013 AT 04:54 PM PDT
I live on $710.00 a month, what exactly am I supposed to cut?
by Horace Boothroyd III

My rent is a reasonable $209.00 because I have a HUD Cube. For how long?, who knows?

That leaves me with $501.00

Phone $35.00 a month.

That leaves me with $466.00

Internet is $45.00 dollars a month.

That leaves me with $421.00

My medication is $50.00 a month, counting bare bones OTC care too.

That leaves me with $371.00

Pootie care is another $50.00 a month-not including vet and tag costs.

That leaves me with $321.00

I had to borrow $140.00 last month because the vet bill the previous month left me behind.

That leaves me with $181.00

With that I'm expected to feed myself for a month. But also maintain grooming standards with products for me because of my skin sensitivities and allergies are extremely expensive. I make what I can to avoid allergens and to reduce costs but there are many things I can't make. Toothbrushes, toilet paper, trash bags, many cleaning products. I try to get clothes from the discount store, or thrift stores. Shoes too, I should be getting special ones but I lack the fortitude to break the HMO bureaucratic maze to get them. But shoes are a large recurring expense for me because I do walk so much.

I also have learned to cook everything I eat from scratch. Again because of finances and allergies. But food is not inexpensive. I can drink the generic coffee at $12.00 a can and I can buy bulk size foods at the restaurant supply. But by the end of the first week it is usually doubtful I will have more than one hundred dollars left.

Today after getting all things covered, with the exception of some food stuffs I'm just going to have to go without.

I have a grand total of $18.00.

No worries. I get to start all over again on the first.

But what exactly am I being wasteful with?

And more importantly after thirty years of 'compassionate' conservatism don't you think it is time for some Humanism instead?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/05/1199539/-I-live-on-710-00-a-month-what-exactly-am-I-supposed-to-cut

[Comrade_McKenzie]

1. The way I understand it is that people that solely rely on SS won't see any changes...

But I might be wrong and if so, that fucking sucks. :'(

[BlueCaliDem]

138. You're not wrong.

The President's proposal will create a minimum baseline for Social Security benefits so that no one who works their whole life has to live in poverty in retirement. The minimum benefit will be above the poverty line, for the first time in the history of Social Security. It will fulfill the promise that Social Security will end elderly poverty and it will actually boost benefits for the lowest wage workers, which the protectors of the Entitlement Status Quo are effectively against. The president's proposal would also boost benefits at age eighty-five, ensuring that the people who are most at risk of running out of their savings are taken care of.

It's worth repeating: for the people who are in greatest need of Social Security, President Obama's proposal will increase not decrease benefits. So that person in the OP's article will benefit from this new formula.

Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html?_r=0

What will President Obama get back for this? Higher revenue and the closing of tax loopholes for the rich that's draining our coffers at alarming speed. President Obama is showing he's willing to give the Republicans what they've always wanted, only, not in the way they want it. They've been whining about there being too much spending, spending, spending on "entitlements" and we need to "cut spending" (which, as we all know means that they want to do away with the social safety net altogether), so President Obama is doing as they asked while not hurting the most vulnerable in our society at the same time he's demanding more revenue from the wealthier Americans.

When it comes to Medicare "cuts" - which are actually savings - President Obama is focusing on those savings from providers and drug companies, as well as having wealthy seniors pay a higher premium {think McCain}. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that - at least, not among the Left. Not unless the Left suddenly moved into the tent of lining the pockets of big pharma and giving "relief" to the wealthy seniors.

[Andy823]

163. It's amazing

Seems like nobody wants to read what you posted, or at least reply to it. From all I keep seeing around here, the president is trying to "destroy" seniors on SS. Your post is the only one I have see so far that show that is not really so, and I thank you for posting this.

Have started a new thread on this? If not I think you should, maybe more people would be able to get a better idea of what is happening.

Thank you again.

[BlueCaliDem]

174. The truth doth hurt.

This site has been infiltrated and infested with FireDogBaggers, TeaBaggers, and sworn Anarchists posing as Democrats. These people are diametrically opposed to anything and everything the President proposes and will NEVER have a kind word for him no matter what he does. There are also plenty who are still pissed off that John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, or Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, or even Ron Paul were all beaten like a second hand Salvation Army drum by that black guy.

There is no changing a mind already made up. The Fringies on either side of the political spectrum are in the minority, and that's where they belong. I mean, they were wailing about the budget that had just past, forgetting, of course, that their hero, Senator Bernie Sanders, voted for it, too. But not a gasp or a whimper about that! Oh noes!. It's, of course, all Obama's fault.

[Andy823]

177. How true

I too have seen more and more posts by the "anti Obama" crowd lately. Seems like when someone attacks the president, a whole crowd of the "anti Obama" people show up and trash the president. The media isn't helping either. Most new articles fail to mention the safe guards for the poor on SS, or that it's the well off people on SS will be paying more in premiums. Even when these things are mentioned, it seems like few people are willing to actually look at the facts. The reason most republicans don't like this plan, at least from what I see, is that most republicans in congress want to do away with SS completely, not simply make the "rich" pay more, or get lesser benefits. Actually I think no matter what the president puts on the table, the moron republicans in the house will not agree to it!

[BlueCaliDem]

204. Very true.

The Republicans don't like this plan because it strengthens Social Security and Medicare while closing tax loopholes for the uber-rich and raising Medicare premiums on wealthier Americans{like McCain and Ron Paul}. They also don't like it that President Obama's proposal will create universal pre-school throughout the country. An educated populace means less taxpayer dollars to our multi-billion dollar prison-complex.

Actually I think no matter what the president puts on the table, the moron republicans in the house will not agree to it!

Aside from what I've noted above, you're correct; Republicans won't want to go for this because it's not what they really want. They don't care about deficits and debt. They don't care about jobs. They only care about funneling as much taxpayer dollars into corporate coffers as they can while bankrupting this country so they can eliminate the sole enemy of Corporate America - the U.S. Government.

This is why all Democrats, Progressives, yes, even Independents should support President Obama here. The last thing we need to do is undercut him. We should leave that to the moneyed and bought and paid for GOP and their corporate masters who own all of our media and who really are the ones with a vast bully pulpit, not President Obama.

It's rare that I find an Obama supporter here. Very few post lately. It's nice to meet you, Andy823.

[Andy823]

211. Nice to meet you too

What always bothers me is the fact all the information is yet to come out, at least that's what I hear, and yet so many are willing to buy into the media hype and accuse the president of all kinds of nasty things. I have seen this here before on other issues, and then once the facts come out, and the accusers are proven wrong, I never see any apologies. Seems like some here just wait for the next round of BS from the media, and then it starts all over again, before the facts come out of course!

[Blecht]

241. Maybe you two love birds should take this to PMs

PDA is usually pretty yucky to everybody but the two involved.

[BlueCaliDem]

258. Or maybe you should ignore this thread and move on?

No one is forcing you to read any posts here.

I'm sorry that fellow Obama supporters shaking hands are "yucky" to you {because I know that's the only reason why you responded - you don't care for Obama supporters on a Democratic Party site}, but you don't have to stick around.

[JDPriestly]

228. I like Obama's proposal to create universal pre-school for all

children. In fact, it might be nice if part of that program permitted the hiring of a few grandmothers and grandfathers to assist trained pre-school teachers in the classroom on a part-time basis. With a little training, grandparents could be really helpful. There is a natural rapport between many very small children and young elderly people.

I also support Obama's American Care Act although I would like to see a public option and I would prefer single payer with non-profit provider companies administering the program.

In addition, I agree with Obama on raising the minimum wage. We should shift the burden for healthcare costs and food stamps to the private sector, to employers, especially big, wealthy ones like Walmart. It is two-faced for Republicans to complain about food stamps and Medicaid and then refuse to enact laws that ensure livable wages and benefits for working people.

I do not agree with Obama's stance on whistleblowers. I don't think I know what much of his foreign policy really is, but I like what I see better than what I saw with Bush. (At least so far.)

I do not like Obama's Justice Department's failure to reign in the greed of the big banks and tax cheats who put their money in foreign tax havens.

So, there are things I like about Obama's policies, and things I do not like.

As a person, I like Obama very much. He seems to have a good heart. He listens too much to economic advisers who are heartless and not in touch with ordinary people. Obama is too beholden (as have been most recent presidents) to the 1%. That aspect of his administration is disgusting.

[joshcryer]

291. It has zero possiblity of passing due to poverty protections.

Zero.

So it's back to the drawing board and more posturing by both sides.

The problem is by accepting the poverty protection "poison pill" you're accepting the "SS saving measure" that merely delays its demise while at the same time cutting benefits. Yes, it is a cut to most people who use it. Chained CPI, in the very long run, would ruin SS. If you want to strengthen SS raise the cap.

I would be OK if it passed as proposed (there are currently 4 million seniors in poverty, my mom is one of them). You can always raise the cap later. But I'm too rational to believe the teabaggers would vote for it. If we get anything I expect those poverty protections to be taken out, much like the public option.

[BlueCaliDem]

327. Raising the cap is the best way to save Social Security

but it's just not going to happen. As long as Republicans hold power in the House and the power of the filibuster, there's no way we're going to get any legislation through that will raise the cap. No. Way. It's their stated goal to dismantle and destroy the safety net, and social security can also be a cash-cow for them and their buddies at Wall Street. So why should they even think of wanting to raise the cap?

At least this proposal had something in it for the Republicans: cutting {costs to suppliers and health care professionals} in Medicare and a small cut as a rate of growth adjustment to Social Security. I mean, they are cuts, so that should've made them happy IF they meant it that they really want to save social security and Medicare for the future, right? But as we can see, that's just another Republican lie. I just hope more Republican voters will see it. They're the problem. Also, if we do nothing, according to the 2013 SSA Trustee's report, we're set to have a whopping 25% cut in BASIC BENEFITS come 2033. Now that is something the Republicans would LOVE to see. So now they do nothing and let the whole thing collapse in itself. Voila! Republican wet-dream realized.

I'm not so sure the president's proposal is dead just yet. As with the Public Option, although not mentioned in ObamaCare that passed as law and upheld as law of the land, the language for a public option had been there all along. The PPACA allows the U.S. Government to set up their own health insurance companies to compete directly with corporate-health-care-insurance . . . the public option.

As the NYT's reported {on page A23, no less} and the Heritage Foundation is worried about, the U.S. is set to sponsor health insurance that will be overseen by the very agency that oversees Federal employee health insurances. They have been working on this since June 2012 and I predict it will open in October 2013 when the health care exchanges are set to open.

So let's not write off this proposal just yet. Doing nothing to strengthen Social Security is no longer an option. We're running out of time.

[TomClash]

180. What nonsense

Chained CPI lowers benefits to most beneficiaries and begins the efforts to redefine SS as a means tested program, formerly the country's biggest political taboo. That will eventually ensure its demise and replacement with a Wall Street controlled private system where everyone gets lessat best, but hedge funds and private equity get more. Much more. I know it and you can bank on it. It is the beginning of a heist of epic proportions.

And what of the widow living on a small pension with SS, who does not qualify for your hallowed scheme? Is she to be sacrificed on the alter of Pete Peterson's "deficit reduction" by the guy all of us just worked to get re-elected? All for the clarion call of lower deficits while the economy staggers along for everyone but the fortunate few? What kind of stupid economic policy is that?

Before you lamely insult long time Democrats who question the President's move, take a long and thoughtful look at what you're supporting.

[BlueCaliDem]

194. Lots of conjecture and suppositions in your post.

An assured demise?? Lowered benefits for the needy? Hyperbole.

The Chained CPI, as you should know by now, would create a minimum baseline for Social Security benefits so that no one who works their whole life has to live in poverty in their retirement. Now pay attention here: the minimum benefit would be above the poverty line, for the first time fulfilling the promise of Social Security to end elderly poverty and actually boosting benefits for the lowest wage workers, which the protectors of the Entitlement Status Quo {like you} are effectively against.

I stand by what I've posted in mine as I'm sure you'll stand by your opposition to this president in your post, however inaccurate it is. And to deny that there aren't FireDogBaggers, Anarchists, and Teabaggers disguised as Democrats on this site is just whistling-past-the-graveyard wishful thinking.

And maybe, just maybe, you should take your own advice and have a long and thoughtful look at what your take is on chained CPI that, lo and behold, has gotten the blessing from those "rightie think tanks". No. Not the Heritage Foundation or CATO Institute, but The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, one of most well-respected liberal think tanks on policy analysis, that has endorsed the change, and the Center for American Progress, Washington’s most powerful liberal think tank, which recommended the chained CPI in its comprehensive Social Security reform plan.


Together with the chained CPI, President Obama's proposal will include savings {propagated as "cuts" by corporate media to frighten the masses} to Medicare (he's already expanded Medicaid through the Left and Rightwing fringes most hated ObamaCare}, and the package will do the following:


1: Add life to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
2: Wipe out poverty forever for the poorest when they retire after a lifetime of backbreaking, minimum wage work.
3: Force pharmaceutical companies to stop raiding our treasury for seniors' medications.
4: Ask the wealthiest seniors {you know? Like McCain} to pay a higher Medicare premium.
5: Close tax loopholes for the rich.
6: Institute universal preschool.

Or . . . would you rather "defend" Social Security to protect the privileged of the wealthy and of the drug companies than accept modest adjustments in the calculation of how much benefits increase by? Would you rather steal from every disadvantaged child in America the opportunity to get an early start for a stronger and better future? Would you rather tell the lowest paid workers to go to hell when it's their time to retire, all just to "defend" the status quo that's headed for bigger cuts in the not-so-distant future?

In a perfect world, we'd be able to get Congress to lift the cap on Medicare payments, close those tax loopholes for private jets and yachts, and stop funneling billions to oil conglomerates in order to bring down the nation's debt, but unless you know we have the majority votes in Congress to get this through, this is the next best thing AND President Obama will get those expensive loopholes the wealthy enjoy, to close, pulling in more revenue.

[Splinter Cell]

203. +3

[dsc]

215. You do realize that for one person poverty is only

11,170 which is under 1k a month.

[BlueCaliDem]

216. And? eom

[JDPriestly]

231. Almost one half of Social Security recipients receive less than

the poverty level in benefits. But that is not necessarily their sole income. How does the Obama scheme deal with seniors who saved during their lives and have income in addition to Social Security. Are they penalized for having lived frugally and saved? The system is fair as it is.

[BlueCaliDem]

255. I've already addressed this in my other post to you.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2628164

[JDPriestly]

230. Sounds like a deceptive proposal to me. It just smells rotten.

If Bernie Sanders doesn't like it, I don't like it.

Bernie Sanders cares about people. He has an excellent staff that carefully analyzes legislative proposals. I trust Bernie Sanders. I don't trust liberal or conservative think tanks.

If you want to split the Democratic Party over this, you are no Democrat. Americans, whether Republicans or Democrats, do not want the Social Security system to be changed into a welfare program. There are enough welfare programs for seniors.

We earn money. We put it in Social Security. We get back money according to what we put in. I am by no means on the top of the list when it comes to benefits, but I do not want Social Security to be means-tested. And that is what you are suggesting.

I also do not want Medicare to be means-tested.

Why? Because means-testing involves prying into seniors personal finances. It is intrusive. Might as well give them yet another colonoscopy. A lot of seniors are incapable of reporting accurately on their finances.

It is just wrong to change social Security in this way.

[jaysunb]

244. +1000

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough examination of the facts. It's good to see a Democrat act as if they can think without the msm setting the narrative.

[ellisonz]

270. +1

[TomClash]

295. One by one

Your post reads suspiciously like third way propaganda. Here are a few of the those "disguised as Democrats" who oppose chained CPI:

Robert Reich
Bernie Sanders
AARP
Dean Baker
Paul Krugman
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

. . . and many, many more

My post was about chained CPI and your tirade against imagined groups purportedly posing as Democrats. To all who can read, it was not about the entire proposal to Boehner, which he has already rejected. What a surprise.

Chained CPI is supposed to be a deficit reduction measure. It changes the way benefit increases are calculated. How do all your wonderful claims, like ending poverty among the elderly poor, reduce the deficit? They don't.

We don't need chained CPI to "fix" social security today or three decades from now. But the White House has now put Social Security cuts, however small, on the table. Once you make a concession it is pretty hard to retract it.

You didn't address my example of the widow with the modest pension, whose social security is now a bit less. Most recipients are not wealthy by any means. We live in a world where pensions are becoming smaller and rarer and are replaced by IRAs, 401(k)s and other plans that are usually lesser alternatives to pensions. There is no need to reduce social security too.

[joshcryer]

299. Closing the loopholes increases revenue and reduces the deficit.

The compromise plans are outlined in these two papers:

http://www.cbpp.org/files/2-22-12bud.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/12/pdf/social_security.pdf

They obviously are not ideal.

[BlueCaliDem]

322. What are you going to do next?

Start a #ISupportBoehnerAgainstObama blitz on Twitter? Of course he's rejected it. The proposal includes closing lavish tax loopholes for the rich. DUH.

But of course Boner is now hiding behind the anger of the too-frightened-of-change people and the misinformed and myopic who's supposed to be on the president's side, but who loathe change soooo much, that they are now agreeing with the toothless Speaker-in-Name-Only of the House. And then you have the audacity to suggest I'm a third-wayer? Last I checked, I want to save Social Security, not dismantle it for myself and other future recipients, so if anyone supports the status quo over chained CPI, they're supporting the destruction of Social Security. And that ain't me.

We don't need chained CPI to "fix" social security today or three decades from now.

That's not what the 2012 SSA Trustee's Report says. That's not what the lack of getting an annual Cost Of Living Adjustment on s.s. benefits for the last four years points to. That's not what two liberal think tanks say. Who should I believe? A faceless poster on DU or them?

And all those wonderful naysayers you've listed don't give a good goddamn that Social Security is set to CUT basic benefits by a whopping 25% come 2033, according to the same 2012 SSA Trustee's Report. The last time they warned about this was in 2005, and the year they projected that they would begin to CUT basic benefits was 2041. Yeah, let's keep the status quo COLA formula and watch Social Security go bankrupt {just like Boehner knows it will} instead of changing it to calculate the RATE OF GROWTH of benefits that's just a minor adjustment, certainly a FAR cry from a whopping 25%, while leaving the basic benefits intact and saving social security for future beneficiaries who have worked HARD all their lives and expect to see their full benefits when they retire. People like me.

By the way, when was the last time the current COLA formula has calculated giving s.s. recipients a raise in their benefits again? Oh yeah. 2008. But people will whine and wail to keep the shaky status quo because they are all are so terrified of change. No wonder this country still votes in Republicans, believes a black man shouldn't be in the White House, and think universal health care is the devil. Change scares the shit out of them.

Those people you've listed all believe, much like some idiots on the Left-fringe {not saying you}, that as long as they've got theirs, fuck everyone else who comes after them. Well, I'm one of those people "who comes after" them. So if nothing is done, if the short-sighted, myopic people you've listed don't read the writing on the wall or pay the 2012 SSA Trustee's Report any heed or listen to experts at THE CENTER FOR BUDGET POLICY PRIORITIES and the CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, two powerful LIBERAL think tanks that do this budget policy analysis thingy for a living and that have endorsed chained CPI to replace the current COLA formula, I will see a CUT of 25% in my BASIC benefits, not the rate of growth, but my BASIC BENEFITS.

Finally, I didn't address the widow in your example simply because it was too generalized. And I'd assumed you knew that she's already saved a lot since ObamaCare closed the donut hole and his current proposal will create savings in Medicare {disingenuously propagated by corporate media as "cuts} that she will see in cost-savings in her medicine and doctor's visits for which she doesn't have to pay any co-pays. All those combined would make up for that 0.3% lower growth rate in the Chained CPI by far, and she doesn't see a 25% cut in her benefits.

The goal of Social Security was to ensure that no elderly would live in poverty when they retire. It was the promise. It's a promise we won't be able to keep in twenty years when SSA is set to cut basic benefits by a whopping 25% if we do nothing. Your widow, though, with her pensions in addition to her social security doesn't appear to fit the example of the elderly in Social Security's original promise, does she?

[TomClash]

339. You don't have to believe me

Here are a two groups you may want to believe:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/035468.html
http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/What_Do_Americans_Want.pdf

Of course, Cato and Heritage love Chained CPI.

OADSI has assets of about $2.5 trillion, which you can find in the very same publication you cited, the Trustees Report for 2012. That money was lent to Treasury years ago to pay for . . . tax cuts for the rich! Even assuming the gloomy, conservative scenario of that report, with unprecedented slow economic growth forever, it would take at least twent-five years to draw down the assets lent to Treasury if we did nothing over the next 25 years or so.

Social Security is popular because it is universal. We all pay and we all receive. Its funds were segregated and it represented a contract between the American People and their Government. People have fucked with it because they want to destroy it,co-mingling funds, borrowing trillions, trying to reduce benefits and so on. Those people are called Republicans.

[BlueCaliDem]

354. CATO and Heritage LOVE destroying Social Security, so they're hap-happ-happy to keep the status quo

because if they do nothing, it will implode in on itself. Don't kid yourself.

In the meantime, they work hard and lobby even harder to ensure there'll be no lifting of the income cap, no raising taxes on the uber-rich, no closing tax loopholes, no more Federal money for jobs, but helping with manipulating unemployment through their Republican lackeys and fellow Big Businesses pals, all the while using their extensive corporate media outlets to propagate, "It's Obama's fault because he doesn't care about jobs! He doesn't care about dealing with Congress to move this country "forward" {into 1914, but that's what they see as "progress}, "He has NO plan, no vision, no NOTHING!". Psy-ops at it's most cynical.

Now the president has put a comprehensive budget proposal forward taking that excuse away. It includes more revenues (abolishing the subsidies to Big Oil - which is a BIG improvement), eliminating tax loopholes, offering entitlement "cuts" (in the form of savings in Medicare) and a offering the chained CPI as minor adjustment as a COLA formula {which amounts to about $3.00 a month per recipient, btw, and what will strengthen the program, not bankrupt it}.

It's safe to assume that gloomy and "conservative" scenario in the Trustee's report is, indeed, gloomy. As I've explained in my previous post, in 2005 this same agency projected that there would be a 22% cut in basic benefits for social security recipients in 2041. They've moved it up since. I shudder to think how many years more will they move up in five/six years from now.

Bottom-line: something needs to be done for Social Security. The fact that we haven't seen a cost of living adjustment for four years is the writing on the wall. The status-quo is going to kill it. And the people who want to kill Social Security, yes, are called Republicans.

Is the chained CPI perfect? Hell no. Raising the income cap to draw in more revenue is the best solution, but in the eyes of the fucking GOP, it's tantamount to raising taxes. Good luck getting that through the Republican House.

[HiPointDem]

195. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

199. +2

[NorthCarolina]

229. Let them spin the facts amongst themselves,

their audience shrinks on a daily basis. Folks are becoming more aware of the truth and rejecting the third-way spin, and for that I am grateful.

[BlueCaliDem]

261. Here are the facts:

If we do nothing, as you and your fellow Status-Quoers would like, basic benefits, not the rate of growth that the Chained CPI addresses but BASIC BENEFITS will be SLASHED by 25% come 2033. Do you prefer that, then?

This isn't me saying this. This is in the 2012 SSA Trustee's Report analysis. It's why the Center for American Progress and The Center for Budget Policy Priorities have endorsed chained CPI. Unlike most Americans and Liberal Action Groups like MoveOn and DKos, these centers actually do this for a living, and they see what's coming down the pike and are ringing the alarm bell.

[hollysmom]

265. no, thta has been proved wrong - and even if it was right, why not just raise the cap a little

that could eeasily pay for a bigger benefit and would not hurt the poorest among us.

I paid into SS all my working life - the fact thta I skipped vacations and saved money for my retirement to not be painful, would find it annoying if I was means tested - punish the careful and thrifty again.

[AAO]

268. Curious as to why nobody in DC suggests raising the cap?

I pay SS tax on 100% of my income. Why does a millionaire only have to pay on a few percentage points of their income? If they just eliminated the cap altogether, they could lower the tax rate and save SS forever! Oh, but I guess the rich might be inconvenienced by that. Never mind!

[still_one]

307. Absolutely correct. Perhaps it was because of the same reason they did not want a public option for

ACA. They are not representing the people, they are represent corporations

[AAO]

320. If you look close enough, you will always see dollar signs. They've all sold us down the river.

[BlueCaliDem]

329. The 2012 SSA Trustee's report has been proven wrong?

Can you provide a link so I can check it out myself? Preferably a link by a renowned agency that specializes in budget policies, of course. I don't do opinion pieces by some Status-Quoer who believes we should be holding out for raising the cap up until we hit critical mass in 2033 and all hell breaks loose.

Did you know that in 2005, the board of trustees at the SSA reported that if we do nothing, we will see a 22% cut in basic benefits by 2041? Now it's 2033. What will it be in, say, ten years from now? This is a terrifying trend. I'm scared shitless about these prospects.

I've worked very hard all my life. In two countries. One will provide me a $3,000 per month pension because we don't have backward Republicans to obstruct what we're owed. Good thing it's not taxable in the United States, so for the SSA that income doesn't exist. Anyway, I've also worked my arse off here in this country, and I don't want to see a 25% benefit CUT by the time I'm eligible to apply for Social Security because Republicans, aided and abetted by some on the Left, are stopping any and all changes to fix social security before then. And that's exactly what will happen starting in 2033 if we do nothing today.

[joshcryer]

290. They haven't endorsed it, they have accepted it as a possiblity.

They prefer raising the cap.

But you are correct that two progressive organizations aren't against it completely, but it must come with the poverty protections, otherwise it is death incarnate.

[BlueCaliDem]

324. Everyone prefers raising the cap. As do I. But how many Republicans in Congress will play ball

with drafting legislation that will raise the cap? How about ZERO. That's dead in the water unless we can change the filibuster rule in the Senate and vote a Democratic majority in the House.

We need to face the cold, hard fact that the GOP wants to dismantle and destroy Social Security and Medicare. It's been their sworn duty ever since those two programs were instituted. Doing nothing, keeping this status quo, will guarantee those programs' demise and the LAST thing we need to do is get all greedy and play into their hand, making it easier for them to obstruct and get to their goal by putting the onus on and attacking this president's who is actually trying to SAVE social security and Medicare.

This proposal by the president is a comprehensive proposal that's more than just the chained CPI. But fact of the matter is, doing nothing is no longer an option. Doing nothing will guarantee that there'll be cuts to basic benefits in the not-so-distant future and would start the destruction of Social Security.

And we're running out of time.

In 2005, the board of Trustees at the SSA reported that if nothing changes, we will see a 22% or so cut to basic benefits in social security payouts by the year 2041. Well, now their 2012 report has upped the ante. Now, at this moment, if we do nothing and change nothing, we're looking at a whopping 25% cut in basic benefits by 2033 - that's only twenty years from now. I shudder to think what their next report will show.

[NorthCarolina]

317. Raise the cap. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

323. I'm 100% for that. How many Republicans in the House will vote for it?

Can you give me a number?

[NorthCarolina]

331. Who gives a s%$t.

The overwhelming majority of VOTERS in America want just that. Bring it up for a vote. Funny that we can discuss Chained CPI, and fund personae on boards all over the web to pitch that idea, you know, the one that the corporatists want, but Democrats are unable even to raise the issue that resonates best with the voting public. Raise the cap.

[nadinbrzezinski]

325. I got an idea...raise the cap

To 200.,000

Better yet, raise the cap to half a mill.

But that of course would never, ever be considered...what about those poor dears job producers?

[BlueCaliDem]

330. I prefer raising the cap, too. It's the BEST solution to keep Social Security solvent.

No doubt about it.

But you're right, there's no courage in Congress for that simple act. I mean, jeezus, just raise the cap to 150k. What's the harm in that? How will that hurt?? It won't. Upper-income and wealthier people have had it pretty damn good for the past twenty years so can't they be patriotic Americans and give up a little for their fellow American who wasn't as lucky?

Fact of the matter is, if nothing is done now, we're looking at a projected 25% cut to earned benefits come 2033, and I doubt it will remain 25% or that the starting year would remain the same. In 2005, I believe, the Board of Trustees at the SSA warned that if we did nothing, there would be a 22% cut to earned SS benefits in 2041. Now it's 25% starting 2033. A 25% cut to basic benefits as opposed to a 0.3% cut in rate of growth should be a no brainer for us. Fact of the matter is, something needs to be done of it's curtains for Social Security. That's just the painful truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

333. fact if the mattdr is my calendar

Reads2013 not 2035. Fact if thematter is this current congress won,t but fsct of the matter is austerity is a choice.

It sucksposting from a phone

[joshcryer]

289. My widow mom would get a $300 increase.

So, what of her? She'd happily take it.

[TomClash]

294. How does she get an increase under chained CPI?

By moving to Tripoli?

[joshcryer]

298. The poverty clause would bring her out of poverty.

From what I understand.

edit: btw why the nasty "moving to Tripoli" comment, Tom? Do you not care about those in poverty in the United States? Your attitude is disgusting.

[TomClash]

310. I live amongst the poor

So your comment is foolish.

The reference to Tripoli was related to your daily, unrelenting posts supporting war in Libya.

[joshcryer]

350. I suppose you'd ship them off to Tripoli too.

[TomClash]

352. No Joshua

You staked that hallowed ground out for your kin all by yourself.

[joshcryer]

353. April 7 marks the day of mass student hangings in Libya.

It doesn't surprise me that you'd make nasty commentary about me on a day like this where Libyans are mourning their dead.

Defines your character for anyone reading this.

[TomClash]

355. You are not fit to malign anyone's character nt

[joshcryer]

356. People can make their own judgment.

I simply state facts.

[NorthCarolina]

348. That is a dangerous precipice to cross because it turns Social Secutiry into a Welfare program

that can then be subject to cuts at will. Keep the program as it is, and raise the payroll cap. That's the solution.

[joshcryer]

349. A living wage is not "welfare."

I did say that it is a poison pill, however, so I agree with you that it would weaken SS in the long run. I just wanted to clarify that I do not like using the term welfare for this aspect of a benefit program. What good are benefits (that you or your family paid in to) if they put you below poverty? Just because it's only a small portion of benefit receivers doesn't make it OK.

[RILib]

300. Social Security, paid for.

In these discussions of Social Security, one thing often overlooked by both sides is that almost all current beneficiaries have paid far more into Social Security, taking into account compound interest, than they will ever see back.

So why the h*ll is it even on the table?

If the Pres is serious about making it provide at least poverty level benefits, let's see some concrete plans, not just hand waving. And they'd better not include reducing the benefits middle class people have already paid for, and which they depend on, which is exactly what the proposal seems to do.

[still_one]

309. Exactly, and for Democrats to fail and recognize this basic fact is a betrayal to honesty.

[JDPriestly]

227. I do by far prefer Bernie Sanders to Obama.

Bernie Sanders opposes the chained CPI, and his opposition to it is one of the reasons I oppose it.

Obama is a third-way, Manatt Phelps, Clintonesque Democrat. I am an old-fashioned, McGovern, FDR Democrat.

Obama and Clinton moved away from the real Democratic Party of my childhood. And I don't like it.

They "compromise" all too much. Obama is sort of a Reagan Democrat truth be known . He is a Pete Peterson Democrat.

I am an old school Democrat.

And I think that additional money could be given to those seniors who receive the lowest Social Security benefits without taking benefits that other seniors worked for and now receive if you raised the cap and taxed all income including bonuses and capital gains. If you raised the cap and taxed all income, you could probably still pay recipients more but lower the payroll tax rate for everyone. That is what I would like to see happen.

[dionysus]

274. and you were a smoove johny devotee. let's not be hypocrits here.

[JDPriestly]

282. Yes. And you know why?

Because Edwards was the only candidate who understood what was happening in the economy.

Because Edwards strongly favored Medicare for all brought in gradually by lowering the age for Medicare eligibility and warned against negotiating with insurance companies. Why did he warn against sitting at a table with insurance companies? (which is precisely the big mistake Obama made.) Because Edwards was a plaintiff's attorney and had sat at many a table with insurance companies and other big corporations.

Because Edwards warned about the mortgage crisis.

Because Edwards showed abandoned, deteriorating factories in his campaign videos and warned about the exportation of jobs to China and other places.

Because Edwards understood that we do indeed have two Americas.

Edwards voted for the War in Iraq but had seen the light by 2008 and apologized for that vote. I don't think Hillary ever did.

It is unfortunate that Edwards lacked self-control when it came to sex. But he is, nevertheless, a brilliant man and was the only candidate in 2008 who really understood what was happening in the economy. Kucinich was great in many respects and is a man of moral courage, but he doesn't have the sophisticated polish that would allow him to get elected. That's a shame, but that's the way it is.

So, yes, especially now, I proudly say that I did support Edwards. I wish he had not been flawed because I think he would have made a great president and had he been elected we would not be in the mess we are in.

He worked for a hedge fund for a while, and I think that opened his eyes to a lot in the economy that the other candidates missed in 2008.

[still_one]

311. Even reagan said that social security was not the cause of the deficit. Raise the cap. Problem

solved. They do not want to raise the cap, then we know whose interests they want to protect, and it is not the regular person

[dionysus]

273. awesome post

[Auntie Bush]

247. I thank you too. So nice to hear this instead of all the Obama bashing.

[hollysmom]

266. I think calling disagreeing with Obama plans being called bashing is an over statement

Obama does a lot of thingsI don't like and I feel that I should have the right to say it here - we should never become like Repubs and march in lock step - that is too repulsive too me.

[Auntie Bush]

332. I agree that we should be able to criticize Obama.

However, sometimes it seems that everyone on a Dem site do NOTHING but criticize.
Hopefully a lot of them are trolls.

[hollysmom]

337. I guess I don't know names yet - but

I disagree and defend depending on my opinion - do not like SSi being dragged into a debt discussion in it has nothing to do with and have the creeping corporatism of his SEC choices - defend his support of what I consider Liberal choices - pre-school and the restructuring immigration in a human and sensible way, etc.

[still_one]

306. Social security IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE DEFICIT. I will trust Bernie Sanders before I trust anyone

in Congress or the executive branch on this.

and Bernie says it is bad.

Social Security is a separately funded program unrelated to problems in the rest of the budget.

AARP, which represents 38 million seniors believes it is bad:

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-02-2013/the-chained-consumer-price-index-explained.html

http://action.aarp.org/site/PageNavigator/SocialSecurityCalculator.html

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-02-2013/stop-proposals-to-cut-social-security-and-veterans-benefits.html


My only hope is that if this actually is accepted by the repukes, that progressive Democrats in the Senate are able to stop it

[Mojorabbit]

171. Will the baseline rise with inflation? Or will it remain static? Thanks!nt

[joshcryer]

292. Chained CPI is considered "at inflation."

Basically BLS has measured consumer behavior of elderly and younger folk and has decided that the elderly have a "lower inflation rate" in their consumer behavior than younger folk.

To answer you simply, it would rise, but it would not rise as quickly as the base cost of living increase, which is why, in the long run, it's a cut. For those at the poverty line they will never see it as a cut. For those who expect large benefit returns, it will be a measurable cut that will be felt pretty big if they live a long time.

[airplaneman]

222. k&r thanks for sharing this. n/t.

[JDPriestly]

224. So how would the benefit change for a person whose income per

month equals the average Social Security benefit and who has money in the bank but earns no interest on it. That is a rather typical situation for Social Security recipients.

How will affect the benefits for someone who has a private pension but receives Social Security on top of that. That is also rather a typical situation.

Is this plan basically means-testing Social Security? And if so who is going to do the accounting for seniors so that their eligibility for Social Security can be determined?

My beef with this plan is that it will create a lot of bureaucratic hoops for seniors to jump through. It is bad enough as it is.

[BlueCaliDem]

252. The Chained CPI will only affect the RATE OF GROWTH

of benefits, not the base benefits {earned benefits}. Nothing else changes except for the fact that we'll still have a Social Security worthy of that title post 2033. But if we do nothing, base benefits will be slashed by a projected 25% - which is what you apparently prefer. I don't. I don't want to look at a 25% cut in my hard-earned base benefits when I retire. This 25% calculation is according to the 2012 SSA Trustee's report analysis.

I repeat there are no cuts being proposed to social security's basic benefits.

Social Security benefits are currently calculated using a formula that takes into account your income and replaces a certain percentage of it. Here is exactly how that's done: by determining one's average monthly income - wage-inflation adjusted - in the thirty-five best earning years of one's life, and then applying a "bend point" formula to determine your base benefit (fashionably known as PIA or the "primary insurance amount&quot . If you retire in 2011 at your normal retirement age, for example, your basic benefit is determined using the following formula:

(a) 90 percent of the first $749 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $749 and through $4,517, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,517.

These "bend points" are adjusted by a formula that has been set in law since 1979, and are based on wage-growth, and there is absolutely no changes to that formula in the current proposal. The changes in the Fiscal Commission plan actually increases the base benefits for the poorest workers who are also likely to have the least in savings or other retirement income.

[timdog44]

225. I have been alluding

to the thing you present in other posts. I think he is smarter than the average bear. There is an obvious reason the rethugs are against this budget of his. Because it is a total give away as far as they are concerned. I have been educated to the chained CPI, but the rest of the provisions seem to be over looked. We shall see what we shall see. I am still betting on BHO.

[JDPriestly]

235. What you are saying is that Obama's plan will hurt everybody

but the most vulnerable. Those who worked the hardest to put money into the system will be hurt. The middle class recipients of Social Security (lower middle class because the upper middle class pays back its Social Security in taxes) have paid their premiums with an expectation (a promise) that the disbursements would be paid in proportion to the premiums paid. And now Obama wants to shortchange those who worked all their lives and thought they were going to receive livable Social Security benefits. That's how Obama wants to balance his budget, bargaining middle class investments in Social Security for higher tax rates for the super-rich. The two, middle class Social Security benefits and the incomes of the very rich are completely unrelated.

That is not Social Security. That is welfare. Seniors want dignity. Seniors want Social Security, not charity, not welfare.

It is a shift of disbursements from the average and above-average recipients (who don't receive much) to the poorest without increasing the total money available for benefits and reducing the amount of benefits overall for everyone. It can only be called a money-saver if it results in on the average reduced benefits. That is unfair. That is not the promise of Social Security.

And I read between the lines that one of the goals is to impoverish middle class beneficiaries so that they spend all their savings and have nothing to leave their children. This will penalize lower middle class people who worked all their lives the most.

There goes the middle class.

It's an obvious slight of hand to enable the rich to continue to get richer and to ruin the middle class, not just the retired middle class but their children who will not benefit from the small inheritances that their parents enjoyed when their grandparents died. This is Wall Streets' way to steal from the insurance fund of recipients between 65 and 85.

Yes. The poor should get higher benefits but not at the expense of those who receive slightly higher benefits now based on the higher premiums deducted over the years from their paychecks.

Remember. Social Security recipients whose incomes surpass $40,000 and $80,000 per year ALREADY pay at a higher tax rate than Social Security recipients whose incomes fall below $40,000 and $80,000. So Social Security is already means-tested in that sense.

[joshcryer]

288. So the person would get $957 a month.

Or a $247 increase.

[dennis4868]

357. Thank you for your post

It's very informational. It's nice to learn the facts about Obama's budget instead of all Emos here lashing out at the president without the facts. Obama's proposal is a good one for the country!

[Cha]

185. You're not wrong.. you're right. But, that will not stop the gusher of

misinformed people.. intentionally mislead by the profiteers that need those donations.

Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said.

RECAP

•Add life to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
•Wipe out poverty forever for the poorest when they retire after a lifetime of backbreaking, minimum wage work.
•Force pharmaceutical companies to stop raiding our treasury for seniors' medications.
•Ask the wealthiest seniors to pay a higher Medicare premium.
•Close tax loopholes for the rich.
•Institute universal preschool.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/04/for-ideologue-left-social-security.html

[JDPriestly]

232. Would Obama's proposal penalize or pay less to seniors who

paid into Social Security while living frugally and saving?

If so, it will be a disincentive for saving. And we need to encourage Americans to save for their retirement.

The Social Security system as it stands with a raised cap that imposes payroll taxes on all income including bonuses, stock options, capital gains, everything, would be fairer.

The Social Security system should not reward those who do not choose to or cannot save over those who do save. It should not penalize those who have union pensions and therefore overall a higher income.

The chained CPI and Obama's proposals are not good for America.

[eridani]

278. How fucking stupid does anyone actually have to be to think that the calculated "poverty level"

--has one goddamed thing to do with actual poverty.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/22/947061/-Poverty-101-The-Official-Poverty-Statistics-are-a-Fraud

Federal poverty levels are so far out of line with actual basic living costs, that rent alone would consume the annual salary of anyone living below the poverty threshold. You simply cannot afford to rent an apartment anywhere in America , if your income is below the poverty level, never mind also pay for food, health care, transportation, heat and electricity.

When governments under-report poverty, they also underfund social programs meant to address and mediate issues around poverty. Even when you advocate on their behalf, using the federal poverty line undermines political support to address the problems of the poor and popular understanding of a socio-economic crisis. Particularly one as severe as the bottom half of our economy is experiencing right now.

It leads policy makers to ignore economic reality for up to half of America and produce ‘solutions’ that either make problems worse or leave too many out in the cold. By under-reporting poverty, we have blinded ourselves to the depth of our economic problems.

So Obama is proposing only to wipe out "poverty." He is dramatically increasing real world poverty. And please spare us the bullshit about "adding life" to the trust funds. What he is doing is impoverishing the vast majority of retirees. The only true way to add life to the trust funds is to scrap the fucking cap.

[JayhawkSD]

2. ditch the internet and use the library.

May not be possible where you live, but most cities have libraries that offer free use of computers t access the internet.

[hobbit709]

4. mobility is not easy for some people.

Transportation isn't easy if you live in a place with no or lousy mass transit..

[Glitterati]

12. They don't care

If you ask these people, walking is good for this person - who should be homeless and know the streets well, anyway.

[hobbit709]

21. My opinion of people with those attitudes is lower than whale shit.

[idwiyo]

26. Walking BAREFOOT is even better, and sleeping outside will insure access to fresh air!

[pansypoo53219]

170. actually barefoot is better. shit. i gave up shoes a decade ago. also no need to buy socks.

the ones i have will last me. i wear slippers if i need something. $10 lands end sale. i got 5 or so pair. go to estate sales. buy for ebay mostly. resale too. better for your feet too.

[Blue Palasky]

76. this

[SammyWinstonJack]

192. Not "this".

Jebus, what the hell is wrong with some people?

[CreekDog]

24. I'm thinking someone should ditch the internet

but it's not her.

[shraby]

151. Bite yer tongue, it's probably one pleasure gotten out of life.

[Newest Reality]

42. Face Palm! - NT

[Janecita]

44. And he should also eat his pet

Because you know, animals are expensive!

[Posteritatis]

60. Free, extremely restricted use with questionable security and no privacy? No thanks. (nt)

[leveymg]

69. The Repug prescription: eat the cat, sell the vid on-line. Offshore the profits.

Problem solved.

[Wednesdays]

272. Horatio Alger was a success, YOU CAN BE ONE TOO

Just eat dirt for a while. Then find ways to trick people out of their money and pay no taxes. Just do a little homework on how to find legal loopholes in order to escape prosecution.

[Yavin4]

71. The Libraries in NYC restrict you to an hour a day

Access to the internet is as essential as access to a phone. Email is how potential employers contact you. The internet is how you apply for a job.

[xtraxritical]

77. Ditch the $35/mo. for the phone, that's crazy.

Use Magic Jack, 19.95/yr.

[totodeinhere]

84. Yes they could reduce their phone cost. But I don't think that that in and of itself

would make enough of a difference. This person would still be living in poverty even after changing phone service. No American should have to be in that situation.

[ljm2002]

135. Yes that's a good idea...

...although there is the one-time investment of $69 or so for the device, it pays off big time. Also they need to be aware that whatever it's hooked up to must be on at all times. I'd recommend getting the device that can be hooked up to your router, that way if you want to turn off your computer you can, and still have your phone service.

Also be aware that it's powered by your regular electricity, not its own, so if you have a power outage you have no phone and no internet. And your Internet service becomes even more essential to retain.

On the plus side: $25 or so for a full year of service. You have unlimited calling anywhere, anytime in the US. You can keep your existing phone # for a one-time fee of about $10 IIRC. What's not to love?

I realize the original question was in part rhetorical. But Magic Jack is a great alternative to regular phone service, it's way cheaper even than any offer you'll get to bundle phone service with your Internet provider.

[xtraxritical]

181. They advertise $19.95/yr and no computer necessarry. That's all I know.

[ljm2002]

184. I have it...

...and it's great. Unlimited calls in the US, anytime, talk as long as you want. One time yearly payment. I don't remember if I pay the $19.95 or $24.95 but given how that breaks down to a monthly rate of $1.67 vs. $2.08, it's still a no-brainer. I highly recommend it, haven't missed the land line at all.

The only down side is, if you don't have a cell phone, then you have no backup for communicating during a power outage.

[diabeticman]

78. Maybe the person is NOT able to get out. Maybe they are force to stay home a lot due to

disability or other reasons. The internet may be the majority way this person can get some sort of human contact.

[demwing]

118. "shoes are a large recurring expense for me because I do walk so much. "

This person gets out.

[kestrel91316]

83. Republicans want to get rid of public libraries, too.

Surely you've noticed that.

[ewagner]

88. They limit internet access

at the library to 1.5 hours per day....and they are very selective about sites visited...and they are monitored.

[avebury]

92. Here are some on the things that I would suggest:

1. If unlimited phone use is not an issue - ditch the phone and buy an inexpensive phone (like Virgin Atlantic) and just get a 200 minute card each month (I used to get a VA card for $20).
2. Ditch the internet. The library is not the only place to get internet access. Learn where all the free wi-fi places are. For example if you have easy access to a local Mall, the Mall's often have wi-fi. If the Mall has an Apple store you can find a place to sit close to the Apple Store where you can pick up their wi-fi. Hopefully a person on limited income has a laptop versus a desktop. At our local library you can have unlimited access to wi-fi if you have your own laptop. Otherwise you are having to book time on the library's computers. Free wi-fi is available, it is just a matter of finding all the locations and one that won't expect you to fork out money.

I know that it can be hard to ditch the internet at home because the internet becomes the one way to obtain reasonably priced entertainment. If someone really needs it at home it becomes a matter of shopping around to get the best deal and when one deal expires, you shop around again. I have my phone, cable and internet with Cox and I have no problem with calling them and trying to get whatever deal out of them I can. If I lived within easy walking distance to one of our library branches or a free wi-fi place I would probably ditch the internet at home without a second thought.

3. Pets - Find out if there is a local pet food bank. Some places have pet food banks for low income people. Some places will also have pet clinics for low income people so that they can get their pets spayed/neutered and necessary shots.

[RC]

122. Haul a desk top, CRT and keyboard to the mall and back for free internet, once a day?

Get a bigger backpack, right?

[avebury]

161. I stated that the key to mobility is owning a laptop.

I don't know why most people want to own desktops in this day in age. They take up too much room and aren't portable.

[nutshell2002]

214. "I don't know why most people want to own desktops in this day in age."

Who said most people want to own a desktop computer? If someone is living on $710.00/month I assume he is using a computer that is quite old. I suppose he could save that $18.00/month he has left for a shiny new laptop. That is if he isn't too busy squandering it on more food.

[JDPriestly]

233. People who have money cannot comprehend what it is to have

very, very little money. It's just beyond their imagination.

That is what is wrong with Obama's plan. He is a wealthy man compared to most seniors. He sees the below poverty level Social Security benefits and wants to do something about them. That sounds great. But in order to do it he wants to cut the benefits of seniors receiving benefits only slightly better than poverty level which includes most seniors.

I have not been able to find out what the maximum Social Security benefit is, but I should think it is not shockingly high.

Social Security benefits should be raised for all recipients. And that can be done if you impose payroll taxes on all income and then reduce the percentage of income paid in the payroll taxes.

[MADem]

283. People may not "want to own desktops," but maybe they can't AFFORD to buy a laptop.

Someone living on fewer than eight hundred bucks a month just might have a little trouble scaring up the cash for a laptop, ya know?

[ljm2002]

144. "If I lived within easy walking distance"...

..."to one of our library branches or a free wi-fi place I would probably ditch the internet at home without a second thought."

Sure you would. I'm sure it would be no trouble at all. If it was raining or snowing that day, well you'd just tough it out and head right out to lounge around outside of one of those free wifi places. You'd get used to sitting in your car and freezing, or sitting on a bench while people look at you funny... And you could just bring your morning coffee and breakfast along with you. Then when you had to take a leak, you'd just lug your laptop into the restroom with you while people look at you funny again... and don't forget to bring it into the stall with you, otherwise someone is bound to snatch it away and then where will you be?

What we really should have is public wifi everywhere. It is totally within the realm of possibility. People could still pay for high speed access, but at least everyone would have basic access.

I have to say, Internet is so essential for me that it angers me that anyone would suggest ditching having it in their own home for some hit-or-miss access they can get at the library (others have noted how limited that access can be) or at other establishments. Coffee shops understandably want you to buy something there to use their wife, and most businesses will notice if you are using their access every day. Using wifi spots is simply not a longterm solution. Having Internet at home is an absolute lifeline.

[avebury]

158. Weather is not a big issue in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City didn't get even an inch of snow this year. We are just off of a bad drought so rain wasn't an issue. If I happened to live within a 10 minute walk to the library why or earth would I want to waste my money on internet? Besides, I could take advantage of the libraries AC during the 100+ degree weather and keep the temperature of my house warmer - thereby saving on my electrical bill. A lot of my work is done online, either on the intranet or internet. I can do personal perusing before work and at lunch time.

As to the mall, if there is free wi-fi you can just park yourself in the food court. People aren't going to pay attention to you. Same for a book store. If I am going to surf the internet away from home it will not be an all day activity but for a set amount of time. And for you poo-pooing the idea of hanging at the mall, a local mall here has one parking garage that is the place to go when a bad hail storm hits the area. Having a laptop allows you to track the weather while you wait out the storm inside the mall. One time, the weather was so bad the Mall actually brought out a TV into the foyer by JC Penney and was tuned to one of the local TV Channels for storm weather coverage.

If the internet is that essential to you then by all means have it at your home. However, if someone is on an extremely limited budget, that budget is only going to go so far. Food, shelter, medical care, and clothing has to come first. This country does not provide free internet service (in fact there will probably be a move at some point to charge people according to volume usage) and that is a fact of life. If you cannot afford it then you need to be creative about how you get it.

[ljm2002]

162. How nice for you...

...that weather is not an issue. Except (as you mention in passing) for when it is.

Nevertheless, you yourself keep Internet service in your home, because it is convenient for you to do so.

If you really believed it was just as convenient to have it turned off then you would already have done so.

But you don't really believe that, you just believe it is okay if someone on a low income has to do that.

Here's a suggestion for you. Just try not logging on to your own Internet for a week. Instead, find the nearest "free" wife or library and use that instead. Then come back and tell us about it. I'm 100% serious here.

[avebury]

167. I have internet at home because I can afford it.

And I have gone a week or two without even getting on the internet - vacations are a great way to unwind. If I gave it up today I would still have access to it at my office. I have been without internet at home when I lost power for a week due to an ice storm. In the larger stream of life it was no big deal because I still had access to it at the library (with my own laptop) or at work. Having no heat in my home was a bigger issue then no internet.

[ljm2002]

173. And there you have it...

...you don't have Internet while on vacation, well that's a straight apples-to-apples comparison ain't it? And when you didn't have access at home for a week you could still go to your office or the library. Well I guess you can't do the test anyway because even if you voluntarily gave up your own home Internet for a week, you'd still have it at the office, unlike the OP who does not have an outside job.

But I guess you *deserve* it because you can *afford* it. Again: how nice for you.

I still say, if your home Internet was your only access, you'd soon realize that using the library and random free wifi is not a good option. And before you talk about needing to make hard choices, I think our OP already makes hard choices and has decided that home Internet is an essential. I know it is for me. I can't imagine having to go out just in order to have Internet access. I'd give up cable before I'd give up Internet, any day of the week. But with bundling it might not be that much of a savings. Although on $710/mo even small savings can make a big difference...

I don't think you really understand why the suggestion to give up Internet seems so cavalier. Maybe some day you will get it. TTFN.

[ljm2002]

197. You say "I don't want to spend too much time online"...

...and that is certainly a reasonable position, for YOU. But the OP does not seem to share your attitude towards the Internet. Personally, I'd give up cable long before giving up the Internet, if it came to making a hard choice.

So yes I'll take your word for it that it is not essential, for you. And I agree it is wise to seek the cheapest service plan possible when you are living on $710/mo. At the same time, I do not think we can tell someone else that having Internet service in their home is not essential, and that they should consider bootlegging off free wifi spots or try their library. Libraries are often closed and often have limits on how long you can use their computers. Anyway not everyone has a laptop, so using wifi spots may not even be an option.

[ljm2002]

206. You say "I am making my comments based on TODAY; RIGHT NOW'...

...but you are also making your comments based on what is true FOR YOU.

If the libraries nearest YOU are open 7 days a week, that's great! Score one for the good guys. But do you really believe you can extrapolate that to the rest of us? Libraries have been cutting hours all over the country, sometimes closing down completely. And even if one could go in any day of the week and hog the computer for hours, are you really suggesting this is a viable longterm solution for someone who uses the Internet every day?

When you suggest going to public places with wifi, remember: not everyone has a laptop.

Anyway. I totally agree they should try and get the cheapest serviceable Internet plan available to them. But it really chaps my hide that people are so ready to wave their hands and call it non-essential for someone on a limited income. In this day and age, I would have to disagree. For some people, maybe it would be easy to forego Internet service in the home. But for many of us, possibly most of us, that is simply not the case. Certainly the Internet provides opportunities to earn income that are not available if you do not have that access.

BTW, I'd do a little research before putting my pet on a diet of scrambled eggs. They have nutritional requirements just like we do. At least pet foods are formulated to provide their known nutritional needs. But again, one can find cheap pet foods, or stores that sell the regular ones cheaper. It's just you need to be careful and not cut down your expenditures by harming your own or your pet's health.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

341. Ok, what's up with all the "Message Auto-Removed" posts? How

does a post get auto-removed? Why were the posts in this conversation auto-removed. This auto-removed thing is leaving gaping holes in conversations here and all over this forum.

[ljm2002]

343. It sure put a hole in this conversation...

...but the person I was replying to had a very low post count, maybe they were determined to be a troll and the auto-remove just went and scraped up all their posts? Not sure how it's working these days. I thought auto-remove was for spam, and I don't think the messages I was replying to were spam.

[Wednesdays]

275. Weather in Oklahoma City

Huh. I live in central Oklahoma too. What did you think of the weather say, last Tuesday and Wednesday? The pouring ice-cold rain? Wouldn't that make a pleasant mile or two to walk, eh? Oh, and about the 100 plus temperatures: two summers ago we had more than fifty days in the hundreds. Even I am hardly the most unhealthy person in the country, but more than a few minutes' walk in those conditions can be deadly for me. I'm really glad you're fit enough to endure such weather.

[Trillo]

155. Making those "free" wifi connections can be terribly difficult

A local grocery store has such wifi spot. I needed to use computer after visiting bank. OS was Ubuntu. In order to connect, I had to use three different browsers (and which I had preloaded, one can't install a new program, even if its opensource, without access). The access ISP had some kind of firewall, and a document which needed to be signed and submitted, something about "following the law". The browser that was able to make the connection, would not submit the form. One browser called Epiphany, which is usually very good for such purposes, would not work, as part of the form required images, maybe they were captchas, that the browser wouldn't display, perhaps they were using some kind of cross site scripting. (I don't recall all the precise details)

The bottom line is, that if I wasn't sort of a computer enthusiast, I woudn't have been able to make the connection, and I was simply also "lucky" that I had multiple browsers installed. It wasn't easy to do. I would never expect the older generation to be able to do it, they did not "grow up" with computers, they're also often dealing with declining mental faculties.

[JI7]

286. the internet at home would save a lot more money than if they had to depend on

other places for it considering all the ways people use it these days.

[hrmjustin]

104. Not everyone has mobility to do that.

[Apophis]

141. Wow.

I can see the compassion is strong in this one.

[sofa king]

150. I dissent!

I've actually done that, and it's totally worthless. Internet access at libraries is often limited to an hour or less per person per day. It's difficult or impossible to save information you have gathered there, and you wind up paying for printouts you wouldn't need if you had your own Internet access. Ten pages of job applications printed at the library every day will add up to more than an Internet bill per month. Their hours are never your hours.

Having Internet access is the only way a person is going to get a high-paying job these days. It can provide critical information which allows one to further education, study a potential employer, edit resumes and applications, gain solid weather reports un-hyped by television ratings, navigate ever-shrinking mass-transportation routes, replace an ailing or shut-off phone, and entertainment comes along with it as well.

The Internet is the only modern convenience which can provide one with most of the other services a poor person must have in order to have a chance to leave poverty. A cell-phone won't do tha alonet; cable television won't do that at all; sadly, a dog probably won't do that, either, but hell if I'm going to recommend giving up a pet.

An Internet connection at least provides one a chance to defray the cost of the service, too. One can sell t-shirt and coffee mug designs, or do all kinds of other low-payoff work which can defray the costs.

Throw the Internet overboard, and you lose all of that. I say throw everything else overboard, first.

I make about ten bucks less a month than the OP, and I'm living a pretty decent life right now, but it is because I have long since gone up without a net and I'm only coming down once. If I get sick, I'm dead, so there's no point saving up for that last rainy day; if I lose my job I'm homeless in a month, no two ways about it. Doing that allowed me to get a drivers licence and a car after a year of saving and another year of paying, and that turned out to be the most extravagant and useless expense I've incurred in that time. I would ditch the wheels for the Internet, if I had to make that choice, without a second thought.

[mwooldri]

210. Depends totally on service provider availability and pricing.

Also depends on desired speed of connection. Time Warner's standard charge for 15Mbit down. 1Mbit up is about $45/mo. They do have an offering of 1Mbit down and 368k up for $19.99/mo but for streaming video it's no good. If there's a phone company offering DSL at a competitive rate, it's OK to play one against the other to cut that cost down... AT&T do a 6mbit down, 768k up for $19.99 as a 12 month intro in my area. Always worth that call to see if that cost can be reduced a bit.

Phone service can be modified too. Regular landline phone can be converted to a "lifeline" service. If ok with it and the internet speed isn't degraded so, there's plenty of internet phone offerings, yep Magicjack is an option.

Edit to add: It is something I do to help control those costs. I bounce one off against the other. IMO Internet and phone access are essential. It *is* worthwhile shopping around, because that can be $40/mo or more in ones pocket rather than that of the telco or cableco.

[Quantess]

285. Bad advice.

Computers at the library are not meant as a long term service to rely on. Library computers are nice if your internet goes down at home or your modem breaks, or, if you're at the library anyway and really need to look something up.

There is usually a line to use them, anyway. Can you imagine if everyone started relying on library internet? What a nuisance.

[Glitterati]

3. According to DUers

1. This person cannot afford the internet. He needs to shut it off. And, don't go to Starbucks, because you can't afford them either, even IF you only sit outside and don't buy anything. And, if you're in the smoking section, you're a damned fool for smoking, even though you don't and just sit there to be as unobtrusive as possible so you won't get thrown out because you didn't buy anything.

2. Rent? You can't afford rent. By gawd, you belong on that pile of leaves over there.

3. Since you don't need rent, you don't need utilities either. And, a discarded cooler is much cheaper than a damned referigator.

4. By GAWD, you had KIDS? In your 40s? Then you're a damned fool. Go get a job!

5. Can't afford your meds? Get a job!

Oh yeah, some more.....

6. If you qualify for Social Security, you qualify for Medicare, so you're lying. Even though that's a bold faced lie!

7. Your husband died? Well, so what, that still doesn't qualify you for Social Security (without Medicare) unless you have his minor child, which you were a damned fool for having in your 40s. See #4 above.



Every one of those things was posted to me just yesterday right here on DU.

[Autumn]

5. Seriously, and look at the money he's spending on Pootie.

Theres a real waste, cause we all know that pets aren't important.

[Glitterati]

6. Exactly!

And, if those leaves were his home, that cat wouldn't have an owner to foot those vet bills, much less food.

[SwampG8r]

11. pootie is part of the problem

maybe pootie should move into the groceries caregory!

[Autumn]

18. He would only have to buy cat food for himself.

You make a good point. That's a savings right there. These politicians are on the right track. Bless their hearts.

[idwiyo]

13. and phone. what does he needs a phone for? savings right there!

[Autumn]

25. Obviously he has never heard of 2 tin cans and a string.

I bet he could find those items for free at any dump. He's just taking advantage, a real typical Welfare King. Double, Bless ronald reagan heart too.

[idwiyo]

30. Yes, sister! you are so right! AND while dumpster diving he can get some food too! Beggards can't be

choosers, you know. Lazy, I tell you, lazy and spoiled by hangouts!






PS. ^^^^ sarcasm

[Autumn]

45. I'll bet there are millions of tooth brushes in landfills

he's just too lazy to look.




Seriously though, a grand total of $18.00 left over. And Obama is offering a chained CPI. Playing poker, or playing chess, I don't know and I don't care.

What I do know is that the simple act of offering it is a fucking disgrace and a cruel thing to do. It's going to be a long 3 years.

[idwiyo]

48. I can not even comprehend living without NHS on 710USD and likely without other services we in UK

take for granted. How can someone seriously propose cuts to even that pitiful amount of money is beyond me.

[zeemike]

86. Have you read Ayn Rand?

That would explain it to you...
Here in the USA we have been infected with that disease.

[Cleita]

142. Bill Maher had a great riff on Ayn Rand last night

more or less explaining why he wasn't a Libertarian anymore. He basically said that followers of Ayn Rand needed to grow up.

[idwiyo]

164. No, and I don't think I am interested to read anything by her after your post.

I had a look in Wiki and that's enough. My brain hurts now. Can't believe anyone would take her seriously but people do believe in Scentology so...

[blueamy66]

75. I was told by many on DU that I shouldn't adopt a pet if I cannot afford it

I complained about adoption fees a few months back. A bunch of DUers told me that if I cannot afford the fees, maybe I could not afford the pet.

Just sayin'.....

[Autumn]

80. I think adoption fees are too high.

If you can provide a loving home that should be what counts, a person who has pets will always come up with needed care for it. One way or another.

[sweetNsassy]

91. I generally agree, but as someone who fosters dogs

those adoption fees are for spaying/neutering, shots, meds and microchips. And saving dogs wouldn't be possible if there was not some money coming in for adopting out the animals.

I can see both sides of it though.

[blueamy66]

97. I agree.

But I was bombarded with the opposite opinion.

[totodeinhere]

105. As someone who has done volunteer work at an animal shelter I can tell you that sadly

not all people who have pets do come up with needed care for it. We see that all the time. Sometimes it's a financial problem and sometimes it's something else but it does happen.

[kestrel91316]

90. I got a great cat off Craigslist for free.

No need to pay adoption fees.

[Autumn]

106. I got mine for free too, and she was spayed.

She never leaves my bedroom so I see no need to chip her.

[totodeinhere]

98. Well it's a sad reality that if you can't afford to adequately care for a pet

the pet could very well suffer. No innocent animal should have to go through that. On the other hand, poor people should be able to have pets just like anyone else. And having a pet can be a godsend to a lonely low income senior. It's a tough situation and I don't have all of the answers. But part of the answer might be programs that exist in some places that give financial assistance to the poor so that they can afford to keep their pets. That can include pet food banks and vouchers for veterinary care. But I realize that such programs are limited and don't exist everywhere.

[blueamy66]

109. great post

A dog would have been a godsend to my guy.

[duffyduff]

133. So that even more get euthanized. Aren't these people sweet?

There are outfits that help low-income people and their pets.

[blueamy66]

147. that was my train of thought

So I don't have alot of money right now. But I/we will again. If my dog needed a visit to a vet, I could come up with the money.

Yeah, I have to pay for spay/neuter fees....don't need the microchip...and if you really want to save dogs, don't ask me to pay for the money you've spent taking care of it while waiting for a family to adopt it.

Just my opinion.

I'd much rather have a dog go to a loving home, with a warm bed, kisses, a ball to chase, walks by the farm and river everyday....than have it put to sleep cause the fees are too high for some families.

[sweetNsassy]

183. Are you kidding me?

First of all, fosters don't get paid shit to take care of a dog. I've spent a ton of money feeding my fosters and me or other fosters get nothing in return. We don't get the money. The shelter or rescue gets the money for the vet care of spaying/neutering and making sure the animals they adopt out are healthy & spade so they and their potential litters don't end up BACK at the shelter because someone didn't have the money or were irresponsible enough to not get them fixed.

If you don't want to pay the high cost of adoption, there are plenty of free dogs and cats on craigs list or in the newspaper but don't blame the rescues because they have to have money to survive to do what they do.

[blueamy66]

186. No I'm not kidding you

I'm not blaming anyone who fosters dogs.

There are not a lot of free dogs out there.

[sweetNsassy]

187. There are not a lot of free dogs out there

because people are encouraged to charge for their puppies because of the assholes who use bait dogs for fighting.

Blame those assholes who take these free dogs as bait dogs. Any responsible owner looking for owners of their pups will charge a fee.

Edited to add:

Blueamy, if you're looking for a dog, you can contact a rescue group and tell them you don't have the money and are looking for someone to sponsor one for you. There are usually people out there that will gladly do that.

[Cleita]

117. Sure, and maybe it's time to turn Pootie into a meal.

[Honeycombe8]

249. +1. Hey, I'm frugal to a fault, but caring for a pet,having love in your life...

some might consider a necessity. What else does she have?

But she might consider getting a part time job, if she's healthy enough, and if she can find one.

[Autumn]

260. Pets give unconditional love, and a life without them

would be an empty life. It sounded like she or he might be disabled and not able to work. It's really sad, 18 dollars left after expenses for the month are met. A chained CPI for this struggling person on SS and tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.

What fucked up priorities we have as a Nation.

[Honeycombe8]

263. So true. So true. nt

[SwampG8r]

7. i saw some of those too

i hope you are finding comfort that the posters saying things of that nature seem to be experiencing some form of mass internet access blackout since the ss fiasco.

[Glitterati]

10. Didn't notice

but, boy oh boy, ain't karma a bitch? ROFL!

[Robb]

9. No, see, it's that $700 is a princely sum to begin with.

Why, one time I lived on much less!

Sure, I don't understand inflation and my situation was wholly incomparable. But I did it! Why can't everyone??

[Cal Carpenter]

15. Isn't it sick?

I wonder if a lot of people are way closer to the brink than they even want to admit to themselves, so they get all weird and defensive and judgmental.

The fact is, whatever nitpicking one can do about some individual person's anecdote is irrelevant.

These are systemic, institutionalized problems. Wealth inequality is expanding. This is a fact. Whether or not one person could have made 'better choices' or some shit has nothing to do with it. The system, as it is, is designed for there to be losers, and more and more losers and fewer winners is the trend. Millions of people ( and growing ) struggle with decisions about what is more important - food or medicine. Their food or their pet's food. New shoes or the heating bill.

Ugh.

[Glitterati]

27. What's sick is that these people call themselves Democrats

AND support Obama following the same guidelines.

[cilla4progress]

115. It's the Makers V. the Takers

and Karl Marx talked about this: those that HAVE are driving this wedge.

At the same time, methinks there is a balance point somewhere. I would have liked to have more than 1 child, but, 20 years ago, realized I couldn't afford to, with the costs of day care. Plus, I wanted to be home with a child, in part because there isn't reliable good quality childcare here (had her in my late 30s), but knew I would lose career mobility, so at one point, had to decide it was too soon...

[Newest Reality]

49. I often wonder if

those rather Stockholm type responses, (wait until they have to make choices like that) are just a matter of mean spirited personal views or if there is something more to this than we realize.

In my understanding, people internalize the system they are in as a way of adapting to it. That's what we are and how we work. Children were once raised in the environment they would most likely live in the rest of their lives and they way they were raised and the modeling they were given was important to survival be it in comfort and luxury or a mean, violent situation where you fight to survive. That tends to be the core aspect of a person's views and reactions for the rest of their lives and changing it is a matter of dealing with our habitual nature, which can be like trying to forget how to drive a car.

So, maybe, just maybe, if people would stop more often and pay more attention to their reactions, (as in, what if I were actually in that situation rather than reacting with fear and avoidance of it by criticizing others) they might see that they have a copy of the system in their own minds that is functional and useful, but certainly affects our ability to see things more clearly, think for ourselves, and find our commonality and conviction with a real sense of our actual interdependence with each other and in relation to our environment, local and global.

If we could all look into our inherit internalized view of what is a dominant system of media, entertainment, etc., then there is a very good possibility that our insights will change our capacity to distance ourselves via abstraction and reification from the suffering and needs of others because you don't have to send for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

The system is internalized in relation to your reactions, be they for against or apathetic. That's an essential aspect of breaking through the shell of concepts and freeing ourselves from the cage of beliefs we are in which both function like water would be to fish, almost ubiquitous and transparent, but there. Then, the possibility for true and unmistakable compassion can shine through without contrivance or false morality. It can be a startling discovery and very transformational to both views and behavior.

Think about that.

[Raksha]

140. I am thinking about it.

While I believe I have fewer of these automatic conditioned responses than some others, I know I still have them. It can be hard to avoid falling into these automatic responses, such as blaming the victim or even blaming one's self for a problem that is actually more systemic than personal.

Excellent post - a lot to think about there!

[ljm2002]

154. An interesting take...

...I think you're on to something. Of course, part of our internalizing is the propaganda that we are bombarded with every day, that makes us think there is a consensus on things (like Social Security cuts) when the only consensus about such things is among the monied elites. Survey after survey shows that on individual issues, the public is actually far to the left of even most Democratic politicians. But people think everyone else is far to the right of where they are -- such is the power of propaganda.

[sunwyn]

66. That's awful....Where is the compassion? I understand though...I get

some really horrible replies if I say how long I have been unemployed.

[Glitterati]

96. Some really ugly shit goes on around here

and that's just too bad.

I'm sorry you have been treated badly, and I wish you all the luck in the world in your job search.

Is there any way I can help?

[sunwyn]

297. Thanks for the kind words. At this point it is a matter of transportation for me.

I am willing to take any job at this point, including going back to cleaning rooms and toilets. I have finally had a few job offers but I live rurally and sold my car 3 years ago to eat so, no public transport here. Lost my food stamps for the same reason when I couldn't make it to required job classes. A friend gave me lots of seeds and I am thus planting as big a garden as body dig. 'Bout out things to sell at this point. Hopefully this year will go better than the last 4...

[Glitterati]

302. Oh, we were trying to resolve your food stamp review issue

by finding some kind of transportation! I am so sorry.

Is there any reason (other than finances) why you can't move to a better area to look for work? Things are looking up in parts of the country, though certainly not all.

I'd offer my home as a place for you to stay if you want to come to the Atlanta area to look for work. I understand, fully, though if you have family and a life you don't want to abandon. And, Georgia is one of the highest unemployment areas in the country right now, so I'm afraid it might not be much help.

Sending you a PM.

[totodeinhere]

89. That vast majority of DUers are not like that at all and you know it.

It is impossible to have a message board like this and not have a few trolls slip through the cracks from time to time. But most DUers are good caring people.

[Glitterati]

93. I'm sorry, I do NOT know that

These replies were not trolls, they were ALL from long time DUers. VERY long time DUers with 10s of thousands of posts.

Most? Not by a loooong shot!

[HiPointDem]

196. +1. the same people who are telling everyone how great the president's plan is are questioning

a $30/mo phone bill like it's mad extravagance.

[Dragonfli]

220. I remember all the "advice"/judgement you received, screw them.

I noticed you didn't let them bully you, you made them look like ashats IMO.

[Glitterati]

221. Thank you!

I just made them show their true colors. It wasn't hard since they are so damned cocksure of themselves.

That's what happens when you've got all the answers, right?

[joeglow3]

8. If u have to have Internet, get a cheaper phone service

Those are available online. Worst case scenario, you can cut $50 a month by not having a pet.

Unfair, shitty choices, no doubt.

[Glitterati]

16. Better yet, get the free phone

That Obamaphone your right wing buddies scream about. It's FREE!

Of course, it's only 200 minutes a month and no data capabilities, but these people don't DESERVE to be on the internet!

[Fawke Em]

17. What is the point of living, then?

If you can't have companionship and some entertainment.

I guess you're supposed to sit in the dark and be alone.

Sigh... whatever.

[Glitterati]

20. According to these DUers

THAT is the point!

Yes, in the dark, on the pile of leaves you call home, alone.

After you EAT the damned cat.

[joeglow3]

31. There are free phone services you can get online

Pardon me if I thought they were asking for honest advice and not just seeking a pity party. I even acknowledged how shitty of a decision faced, but let them know they could save 35 a month without noticing a difference.

How that led you to your conclusion is beyond me.

[Occulus]

34. Name one. Not Skype, it's not free, I tried just yesterday.

So name one.

[joeglow3]

50. Google is your friend

http://freebies.about.com/od/computerfreebies/tp/free-internet-phone-calls.htm

[Occulus]

148. Please, PLEASE tell me you didn't just refer people to about.com

Are you kidding?

Seriously, are you FUCKING KIDDING?

About.com?

Next you'll be telling us Windows 95 is secure sans updates



edit: here's a few things you DIDN'T know. Google voice doesn't work- repeat, DOES NOT WORK- if you don't already HAVE a cell plan. I know; I tried to set it up on a phone without a plan, connected to my wifi. No sale. It simply did not work. I set it up on my phone, which has an active plan, and it worked flawlessly. You need a phone with a plan for Google Voice to work, full stop.

The other two "alternatives" LIMIT CALLS TO A FEW PALTRY MINUTES. Are you kidding? Seriously? Five or ten minutes of calling, when someone in that position can be put on hold for government services for TENS OF MINUTES AT A TIME?

[kestrel91316]

94. Yahoo instant messaging has a way to do video calls,

but the other party also has to have the software installed and be online.

[Occulus]

153. And how will he pay for the data overage fees that will result from video calling?

[haikugal]

336. Skype is free..

I use it to talk to a friend in California...It is free. I pay nothing but I call computer to computer which may make a difference.

[Occulus]

340. PC to PC, yes, it is.

If a phone is involved, you have to be on wifi to avoid paying, which implies a working internet connection with enough bandwidth to use it in the first place.

[haikugal]

342. Yes...

Which isn't a good answer for the OP. I also can't help but think that this chained nonsense may make it harder for people to qualify for the various kinds of aid that is available. I too live on SS and whilst I have more than $700 it's difficult.

Thanks for your response and info.

[Honeycombe8]

250. This is true. I looked into that. But it's not the same.

Calls are dropped, and call quality is iffy sometimes. And you have to pay a chunk up front to get the gizmo.

It's called Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP).

Still, it's an option. Once you get the gizmo, there is either no or a small monthly fee, depending on which gizmo you get.

[totodeinhere]

110. This person should not be forced to have to live like that. But...

the sad reality is that they are forced to and therefore they have to make some hard and painful choices in order to survive. With that small amount of income they will be forced to make some unwanted sacrifices. There is no way around it. We can all agree that it shouldn't be that way but it is.

[duffyduff]

136. Until you have walked in that person's shoes, don't you DARE suggest they do it. n/t

[totodeinhere]

139. Well then what should I suggest that they do? They have to do something.

Look, I am completely sympathetic. I thought that I made that clear already. My point is that many lower income Americans have no choice but to make some painful sacrifices in order to get by. It's a reality so therefore what is wrong with saying so?

[demwing]

123. So...better off dead?

is that what you're saying?

[undergroundpanther]

243. I feel ,like

Some Du'ers self righteous budget pricks telling people like me and the OP who are poor or disabled or on SSI Or SSDI or SS to not have net access or give up their pets are HUGE ignorant assholes. I have 2 cats and a 7' Boa,Kali. I got both cats for free.Sparkle is 15,and bear is 10.Kali is 20 years old. They are all happy well fed and adored and if I didn't have them I would be dead,that is why my therapist has declared them my therapy animals.So no matter what happens they cannot be taken away.My cats are on or near me all the time they are constant companions,Kali she is with me alot too and she likes being wrapped around me.I love her. Because I cannot afford a car,insurance gas,I am trapped in this house.It is very hard to arrange rides. it's isolated here and so very lonely, if I was forced to ditch my pets or the net I don't have a reason to live anymore because my life sucks because of the various disabilities I deal with every fucking day.

Bullies are petty tyrant,cold hearted,oblivious to others reality scumbags.Every last one.I wish they'd STFU

[idwiyo]

19. Get rid of the pet? Never mind that alone might increase his mortality chances. Oh, wait! Drop dead!

THAT will save him money!



And how do you now he has the expensive phone service and not the cheapest option he can?

[joeglow3]

33. Because there are near free services you can get

So long as u have an Internet connection, which he does.

[Occulus]

35. And now it's "near" free.

Not the same.

Your goal post grew legs and walked the fuck off!

[joeglow3]

51. There are both. Spend a tenth the time using google instead of bitching

http://freebies.about.com/od/computerfreebies/tp/free-internet-phone-calls.htm

[Occulus]

172. Read your own damned link.

You've never tried to set up Google Voice on a phone with out an active plan. If you're not using a PC with a mic, you can't. Period.

The other two "alternatives" limit calling to five to ten minutes at a time. Useless.

[idwiyo]

43. How do you know he didnt try already? I can hardly imagine someone in that postion haven't tried

everything they can to minimise expenses.

[joeglow3]

53. Then he can say he tried

Again, he posed it as a question and I answered. If he just wanted to vent, he should not asked a question.

[Honeycombe8]

251. +1. My phone is $50/mo. Where does she find $35/mo? nt

[Posteritatis]

61. Trusting phone companies with a budget that tight these days doesn't seem terribly safe. (nt)

[joeglow3]

64. Huh?

I don't understand how that applies. Are u showing someone shouldn't look for cheaper alternatives and should just pay whatever a phone company wants to charge (because that is all I was advocating against).

[Posteritatis]

81. No, I'm implying that relying on phone companies for the net isn't a safe cheaper alternative

Because those companies will find a way to charge whatever they want to charge, specifically.

US and Canadian cell companies are about as abusive as it gets in that industry globally. If I was financially on the margins to that extent I wouldn't dare rely on them for internet access, because sooner or later they'd find a way to ding my fees into overdraft territory.

[joeglow3]

108. So, find a service and do an hour of diligence

Find out if u have to give a bank account. If not, how do they charge you? Read the fine print and print it out. If it says overseas calls are the only fees, print out the TOS. If they try to charge u, show it to your bank/credit union and the BBB. Fees will be reversed.

Basically, try to do something other than NOTHING.

[sweetNsassy]

111. I would give up just about anything other than my pets

And I imagine most animal lovers would do the same. It's cruel to tell someone to give up their pet.

[joeglow3]

166. Re read what I said

I said that he should look at his phone bill.

I then pointed out that if had to chose which between that and food, that is a shitty choice.

[sweetNsassy]

178. ok sorry...

I had to make some sacrifices lately myself. Gave up my phone, i'm down to 2 meg internet connection and gave up cable (and being a Rachel and MSNBC junkie it sucks), among various other "luxuries", but I still have my four dogs, one a foster and a cat. I'm a little touchy when it comes to my pets.

Sorry I misconstrued your post.

[joeglow3]

205. No problem. Pets are awesome.

About a year ago, we got a sweet 80 pound mutt from the pound that was found abandoned in an apartment. After a year, the separation anxiety is finally going away. But she is the sweetest angle and is wonderful with our 3 boys. If I was alone because my wife passed away and the kids are grown up, I imagine the only thing that would keep me from being miserable and lonely would a four legged family member.

[magical thyme]

113. for many of us, our pet(s) = a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

of course, it would be cheaper to lie in bed all day and take up naps as a hobby. But, seriously, everybody needs to have a little love and companionship.

There are probably a couple things that person could cut back on somehow, but that is not the point. That is an appallingly small amount of money to survive on.

I was able to survive on less than that...about 40 years ago!

[jwirr]

14. I get $718.00 and I agree with your post.

[Worried senior]

101. I get $615.00/mo

I am very fortunate that my husband is alive and he receives more than I do. Mine is lower because I took it at 62 because I had no choice.

We are not living high on the hog either and we have a pet. There has to be some pleasure in life and he's ours.

[michigandem58]

22. What's a HUD cube?

Googled and the links just brought me to this article.

[Sunlei]

38. probably a tiny, tiny apartment.

[Glitterati]

39. It's a BOX for the homeless

that folds up into a backpack so they can "move" when the cops throw them off their pile of leaves.

[SunSeeker]

201. HUD has a program with certain landlords for low income seniors where HUD pays most of the rent.

The senior pays 30% of their income towards the rent (here, $209 since SS income is only $710), and HUD covers the rest of whatever the rent is. I knew a few seniors who were paying just $225 for nice $1,000/mo. apartments here in So. Cal. under that program, but there is a 10-year-long waiting list for those nice apartments. Most local senior centers can provide a list of such apartment buildings. Usually they are spartan, single room bachelor apartments, hence the term "cube" I guess. And although some buildings are in nice areas near the beach (with huge waiting lists), most buildings are in cheaper rent neighborhoods inland.

[mwooldri]

212. I think around these parts they call it Section 8.

Once you're on Section 8, you just need to work with a landlord that will work with the housing authority (I guess HUD) and work out payments. Yes, it is true that the tenant pays X% towards rent, 30% seems right. It doesn't have to be a "cube", a reasonable 2 bed single family house can be considered. Or a reasonably priced apartment in what part of town (or not) that is chosen.

[Honeycombe8]

253. You have to employed to get Sec. 8 housing. Maybe she works? I thought she was on SS.nt

[mwooldri]

338. My friend doesn't work.

She was disabled from birth. She's fiercely independent though, and has worked in her past. She qualifies for Section 8 here in NC - and she wasn't doing any serious work when she moved here.

[Honeycombe8]

345. Are you sure it's "Sec 8"? Maybe it's different by the state.

My sis in Louisiana wanted to get on the Sec 8 list for housing, but it was a long wait, at least 2 years, they told her. Plus, she had to be employed to get on the list (she was out of work at the time). Also, the irony is that my sister used to work and help people get on Sec 8 list, and she said you had to be employed. That's because it's not free, I guess, and you have to have income to pay the rent and expenses. It wasn't a program for the homeless or unemployed.

But maybe if you're on disability, that counts, since you have a guaranteed income.

I think it's the same here in TX. Maybe it varies by state.

[panader0]

23. I get $778-

Luckily my house and land are paid off, but the taxes are almost $3300 a year. So nearly $300 for taxes a month. Jeannie pays the electric. We share food expenses and cable/internet. Then there's that pesky beer bill.
I usually can get a couple of small jobs a month, block, framing, drywall etc. No life or medical insurance.

[Sunlei]

41. your taxes are lowered when you're over 65? you are lucky your house is paid for and you have skills

[Honeycombe8]

254. Here in TX our property taxes aren't lowered at 65; I think they're frozen.

Whatever they are at that age, I think they stay at that level, or rise very little. Something like that.

[MADem]

284. Some states have what's called "circuit breaker" property taxes for seniors.

The taxes can't be more than a specific percentage of the senior's income. They have to pay it, but they get a tax rebate for the overpayment after filing taxes. MA works this way.

[southernyankeebelle]

28. This man worked many years of his life I am willing to bet and worked hard. He is retired

and if this guy has just a little pleasure in life like internet so be it. He isn't going out and getting drunk or getting high on drugs. Maybe the guy wants to sit in his home with his things around him where it is quiet. I don't see why he should give of the internet if that is his form of enjoyment. He doesn't say if he smoke or drinks. What the hell do people want the guy whose only connection to the wide world is the internet to do. I don't get people sometimes. They act like if a person is poor he/she isn't entitled to any enjoyment. Well I say to the poster enjoy what little things you can as long as you can. If you need food go to the food lockers at the churchs around you. God bless you and you are doing the best you can.

[thesquanderer]

46. Being a devil's advocate here...

There is free entertainment... radio, over-the-air TV, books and magazines at the public library.

And having a pet, with its vet and food expenses, is a luxury for someone on a meager income.

If someone's sole source of income is social security, things are going to be tough, it's not enough to afford the things so many of us take for granted. The question is, how much beyond food, shelter, and medical should it be expected to cover?

Also, there are often supplemental programs for people who have no other resources, they don't necessarily need to live on SS alone.

(But I agree with some other posters... if it were me, I'd try to keep the internet, ditch the phone, and get a cheap VOIP plan.)

[Babel_17]

114. I agree about the value of free entertainment

but OTA TV has been done away with in many apartment complexes. No antennas on the roof in mine, and we're over 50 miles away from the nearest broadcasts anyway.

Basic cable, very basic, is around fifteen bucks a month. Part of the cost is from congress agreeing with broadcasters that cable companies owe them money for providing their commercial ridden feeds.

With the internet I get to communicate with people. Sure, a book is communication but it's one way and not dynamic.

The poster might not have a land line phone. Might have a cell for outside emergencies and regular communication. That's what I have. Plus I needed it for work though I might be retiring from my current job.

Off Topic but so many of the things that retirees depend on have such a low cost once the overhead is paid. Cell phones, the internet, TV, they are all cheap commodities to provide once the initial costs of development are met.

Hopefully, soon, we'll be able to provide these dirt cheap items to all our retirees and disabled. It takes effort to blend the benefits of socialism with the benefits of capitalism but I think we can do it.

[Honeycombe8]

256. I wonder if she could find part time employment? nt

[RILib]

301. having a pet is having a family member

for isolated people. You can't remove everything that makes life worth living.

[thesquanderer]

316. I love pets too

But is it the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone has enough money to have a pet? Or internet in their home? (Or both?)

[eilen]

29. At some point don't you ask yourselves "Who is this guy?"

Where is his core? What does he really believe in? Because if this guy is the kind of man who thinks that a person, a veteran or elderly retired person can sustain more cuts when their income is less than $12,000 per year, than I think he just might not be a Democrat. I asked myself the very same thing back in the 90's when our Big Democrat in the House cut welfare and signed NAFTA. Then you have to ask yourselves why we keep sending Democrats to the White House that are not really Democrats --maybe after the Reagan/Bush years we forgot what they are?

[Octafish]

169. Thank you, eilen. You have spelled it out.

Since Reagan and Poppy worked with the Ayatollah to prevent the October Surprise to sink Jimmy Carter, things have gone from bad to worse at a rate most thought impossible.

Justice is now Just-Us and We the People aren't among the lucky few with a ticket to the party.

[MisterP]

190. under systems like ours, the smaller the difference between parties, the greater they agitate for

votes: it's a vacuous, bipartisan partisanship; the closer their policies, the less they can afford for people to realize this, so they have to maximize passion: in Cold-War Honduras and 19th-century Argentina and Brazil adherents of opposite parties *killed* each other, while the historians cuttingly remark that the political parties involved were *identical*

and for those who *are* cynical, they have right-libertarianism, so even if they feel that both Reaganaut parties are the same, they just think that the alternative is a *third* Reaganaut/Bircher/paleocon: there's no threat to the system they decry, and they're just there to reroute dissatisfaction into corporate-friendly directions

[dawg]

32. I feel sorry for people like that, really I do.

But asking me to pay SS tax on my income above $113,000 is just too much. I might have to cancel the pool service.

[Cal Carpenter]

40. good lord

you almost had me. Blood pressure spike, under control now

[dawg]

52. They won't admit it that bluntly, but ...

I bet that is exactly how a majority of Americans making over $113,000 feel.

[MissB]

73. Dh and I always say "raise the cap".

We are both Democrats. Dh is a private sector engineer and has worked for the same firm for 25 years.

I point the above out because we aren't Wall Street folk- dh is just fortunate to keep with the same employer over a long period and happened to get an engineering degree. We make under $250k/year, so we avoid some of the higher taxes. But we hit the SS cap on dh's salary each year. And each year it is earlier, because his employer gives him a raise each year. (I never hit the cap with my salary, because I'm a public sector engineer).

We think the cap is stupid. Those of us that earn more should pay more. We've been fortunate. It should be reflected in the taxes that we pay. How we treat the elderly (who worked hard but earned less because wages were smaller when they were in their peak earning years) and the poor should reflect that.

[kestrel91316]

99. Hell, they won't have to cancel the pool service. They'll

just have to hire one that isn't the most expensive - they'll just have to give up bragging rights.

[Sunlei]

36. don't cut anything, you're not wastefull.

can you babysit? a kid or a pet. can you bake or cook something that you can resell at profit? for example my neighbor 84 yrs old makes a pound of fudge for about 1.00 and resells on ebay for a huge profit. She spends the night once in a while at a nearby persons home and feeds their 2 cats. She reads to little kids and helps them read along, two families an hour a weekend and they pay her about 30.00

do not isolate yourself, try to gather together a few close like minded friends where you can face to face keep watch over each other. There are huge benefits to being online and having a pet. Ask for help, provide the name of your Vet and there are good people who will pay your Vet directly to cover your pet costs.

[unapatriciated]

63. I know you are sincere and are truly trying to help.

But as a pretty good cook and baker, seriously a pound of fudge for a 1.00? You can't even buy the sugar needed let alone the butter and chocolate.

The babysitting and reading are great suggestions but many who are disabled are not physically able to do those things.
You may also not be aware that if your 84 year old neighbor does not declare that "huge profit" as income, she could run into some serious legal problems regarding taxes.

The bottom line is $710 dollars a month is not enough to meet basic needs for those that are disabled and further cuts would mean they would have to give up either shelter, food or medical needs.

[Walk away]

242. I have a friend who does personal assistant work for two single guys...

She works one day a week for each of them. They both have cleaning services and pet sitters so she does everything from ordering food to be delivered from the grocery to stopping at the nursing home for one guy Mom (he goes on other days but she does all of the scheduling and checks with the nurses etc). She makes $100 a day so that's an extra $800 per month. Just what she needed to supplement her S.S. and tiny annuity.

She loves it. Yesterday she organized one guy's home office and ordered in food from a caterer's for his dinner with his girlfriend. I was the one who found the first client for her and he recommended her to his friend. She is the one who waits for deliveries and PSE&G. She even brings her little dog to play with his while she works. Sweet gig!

[unapatriciated]

248. SSI for our disabled have different rules for income, than those who are retired.

Those who supplement their disability payments must report all income received each and every month.
If they do not and are audited (and they usually are on a yearly basis) they risk losing their benefits and having to pay back any monies they received. The first $85 is not counted, any thing above that is divided in half and deducted from their monthly payment.
If someone on SSI that is disabled earned an extra $800 a month their $710 benefit would be reduced to $352.50 leaving than with $1,152.50. That would give them a little over $400 dollars extra a month but for some the affects on their health is just not worth it. Many who are on disability do not own a car and have to depend on public transportation. It's great that your friend can do this to supplement her retirement but the rules are not the same for those on disability. Believe me I know. My son has been disabled since age 13 and has been on disability since age 22. He has to declare every penny I give him to help defray the cost of his medical needs. Medical care for our disabled is a joke. When he was covered on my insurance I still had well over a thousand dollars a month in out of pocket cost, but at least he received regular follow up care. I'm 61 and still work full time. There is no way I can even think of retiring due to my son's illness.

[Zax2me]

37. Reading this makes me angry that we can't cut 2% from our national budget.

Without all the whining and moaning.

[kurtzapril4]

54. The whining and moaning of who, exactly? n/t

[unapatriciated]

47. Anyone who suggest there are areas on the budget posted that could be cut...

Are in reality suggesting that those on SSI are less than and not deserving of even the smallest of creature comforts.
Many who suggest that SSI recipients could somehow manage to live on less do not get it. They are already living at way below poverty level with very few creature comforts that most of us take for granted. They see cell phones, internet access or even a pet as luxuries that those on SSI should not be entitled to. In today's world this could not be further from the truth. When you point out why these three basics items are a necessity their one and only answer is, there are public libraries.

Realty Check.

Many public libraries have had their funding cut, which has resulted in closing of some and cuts in hours in others.
Emergencies do not keep bankers hours nor do they give you the luxury of time needed to take the bus.

Pets are also a necessity for many on disability, since they provide the physical contact and love we all need. They are much less expensive than a therapist and all many of our disabled have to meet that very humane need to be wanted and loved.

[sweetNsassy]

179. Great post

Thanks.

[ColesCountyDem]

55. $817/month in unemployment and SNAP (food stamp) benefits, after AT&T 'outsourced' my job to India.

Because the majority of my bi-weekly paycheck was in the form of 'commissions' ( not counted for UE purposes ), rather than wages', I was forced to go from a $2500/month after-tax income to $817/month. I thank god I had savings and a small 401(k)!

I feel the author's pain!

[RKP5637]

56. Many will eventually fall into this ... they just don't get it yet and have

elaborate latent defense mechanisms at work. The best defense is denial ... where many heads are ... And then, WTF? The deer in the headlight people.

[lib2DaBone]

57. Gas goes up, electric goes up, insurance goes up....

... but wages NEVER go up.

It's the "Trickle-Down" mentality that permeates Washington D.C., and is supported 110% by our worthless, suck-up , Lame Stream Media.

[Botany]

58. We all have to help out because Exxon needs the tax break

n/t

[AndyA]

59. Just withdraw some money from your trust fund, of course.

Problem solved.

Another example of how Americans can't continue to exist in the manner expected by this country's leaders.

The fact that President Obama would even consider cutting SS is offensive. Even if it's a strategic move. It says to everyone, "I don't really care. I'm willing to play with your lives because that's the way politics works."

Instead, President Obama should bring the person who wrote this to Washington, put them in front of the cameras, and let them explain to America how they live. Then ask members of Congress why they think people can survive in this manner, and why the wealthy are the ones who get all the breaks, and those who can least afford it are expected to carry more of the burden.

It's bull pucky, as Rachel Maddow says, and it's offensive.

[Octafish]

334. + Congreff

What ever happened to Reagan? Was he reanimated as a Democrat? Just his brand?

[mountain grammy]

62. Compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron, and most conservatives are morons.

This attitude that everyone makes their own bed is mean and wrong when so much is out of our control. At 65, I've had a front row seat to the demise of the great American middle class and I learned it's all about survival. Don't get sick, don't even think about a new car, and, if you're lucky enough to have a small plot, plant your own vegetables. If the worst thing happens and you do get sick.... bummer, you're instantly poor.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. Meanwhile, you are expected to be a good little consumer and buy a 38" 3d TV.

[stevenleser]

67. This is why we need pensions for everyone that are independent of the employer.

It should be mandatory that employers pay into it, but they have no control over it. I made that point here in a discussion I had with Neil Cavuto over Unions (I defend the unions too).

[broadcaster75201]

68. As Obama would probably say to you

"Eat your peas"

What a disaster is Obama.

[Glitterati]

87. And a disappointment

I am so no longer hopeful.

[sabrina 1]

70. Ask Alan Simpson what the elderly, veterans and the poor are supposed to cut.

As a chair of the Deficit Commission he considers all of them to 'greedy old geezers' or in the case of veterans, 'not very heroic' for taking their benefits. Iow, all you poor, elderly, disabled 'moochers' are supposed to stop taking those enormous benefits you are living on!

That he could get away with slamming retirees who paid for their retirement fund, THEIR retirement fund, and to tell veterans they are not heroes now because the country needs their benefit pittances, is simply stunning. But he did get away with it. There was a huge reaction to his comments and a demand for his removal from that Commission, but as always, the people were ignored.

I'm waiting to hear what he has to say about the Wall St. Criminals who are responsible for the deficit though. Especially the ones hiding their ill-gotten fortunes in off-shore accounts to avoid taxes.

[Glitterati]

85. He will applaud them!

I'm waiting to hear what he has to say about the Wall St. Criminals who are responsible for the deficit though. Especially the ones hiding their ill-gotten fortunes in off-shore accounts to avoid taxes.

To people like Alan Simpson (and evidently, Obama as well) ^^^these are the true heros.

Disgusting thought, isn't it?

[DFW]

72. That's so far below the poverty level, it's rdiculous

Never mind if some third world countries might consider it livable. We are not Malawi.

Or at least, we weren't supposed to be.

[MissB]

79. Excellent advice for the elderly and disabled!

Welcome to DU. I look forward to more nuggets of your bountiful wisdom.

[Autumn]

95. Here's what anyone on SS needs to do

kick any politician who is for cuts of any kind to SS out of office. Problem solved.

[Glitterati]

102. ^^THIS!

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[OhioChick]

116. You've got to be shitting me!

You expect my 93 year old Grandmother to go "dumpster diving?"

[Glitterati]

120. They do!

They honest to gawd do.

Just like Rush Limbaugh saying kids can go dumpster diving all summer when school is closed and they have no lunch.

These are supposed DEMOCRATS!!!!!!

[Bay Boy]

159. I was thinking maybe a little prostitution...

...would add to the monthly income.

[magical thyme]

126. thought you were serious until you headed into dumpster diving and part time job

Because, really, I know many employers who are begging for employees, especially seniors, and paying more than minimum wage when they find someone who will lower themselves to take a job. Not.

And dumpster diving is really safe, you'll never get sick from what you find in there, and who can't just climb into a dumpster and dig around in there.

So now I know you are being sarcastic, and am very relieved. You did just forget , right?

[Glitterati]

128. Don't forget

those sickly, disabled adults are going to have to fight the elementary kids Rush Limbaugh sent to the dumpster, too!

There will be riots at the Publix dumpster when Granny starts beating the hell out of Junior over the rotted lettuce.

[KG]

137. Here's what YOU need to do

piss off.

[Joel thakkar]

281. You all are really rude

I am new here and a new democrat...I Don't know much about US Politics as i am a new immigrant..I just wanted to help and share my views. I know i may be wrong but instead of pointing out my mistakes you all are just plain rude...

[Glitterati]

304. Oh, that's RICH!

You tell someone living in poverty to go dumpster dive and we're the rude ones?

[Joel thakkar]

308. I already said in my previous post and saying it again...

I accept there may be a mistake from my side and i am sorry for that. I am new to all this...I just thought you all could have pointed my mistake in a more polite way instead of bashing me.

No worries, i have already deleted that post and i have nothing against anyone.

I am sorry if i have hurted anyone's feeling here.

[Apophis]

143. How about we'll make you work if you're elderly or disabled?

FFS.

Idiotic response.

[Dragonfli]

234. I was once, in my younger years, quite a connoisseur of dumpster diving, tell me

Do you find that the maggots on the delicious meat offerings add to the natural aged seasoning or detract from it? I didn't care much for the little guys myself, I have been a vegetarian now for thirty years and can still picture it in my minds eye. The rotten fruit and vegetables can be quite interesting, there is some liquefaction involved and the odors are not everyone's cup of tea, but if you only eat the firm bits that are left, with a little imagination it is possible to avoid vomiting most of the time by avoiding paying too much attention to the odors and meltier bits.


About one out of ten times I would find regular, unspoiled food, but I suppose those occasions just took the fun out of it.

I don't like you very much, telling you exactly how much is against the rules here.
It is not really personal, it's just that you are a callous fool that does not know what you are talking about or how such a suggestion that anyone should have to, let alone be advised to, eat out of a dumpster is far more odorous, rotten and vomit inducing than anything I have come across in a dumpster.

M'kay?

[Glitterati]

236. Ooooh, zing!

That's gonna hurt!!!!!!!

Great takedown!

[Dragonfli]

237. People that have no idea what poverty is like yet advise and judge poor people

make me angry, it's a real sore spot for me. I endured being the focus of their smug judgemental glances aimed down the ends of their noses (yet not seeing you at all) and their advice centered around A belief that poverty is a choice and/or character flaw, for years.

When I encounter them now, I begin having thoughts of guillotines, the looting of houses and other uncivilized things.

I have to remind myself that I made a promise to be better than them, a promise made to someone that WAS so much better than the lot of them combined, there have been times that promise has prevented some very uncivilized things from happening.

I never promised to like them or even pretend to tho

[Glitterati]

240. Yes, lots of judgemental people 'round these parts

And, have never walked a block in our shoes, much less a mile.

I just see sad, pathetic people who KNOW they'd be right there beside the poor if not for the hard work of someone else.

[undergroundpanther]

246. Dragonfli

I have those 'uncivilized' thoughts all the time.

but what is really uncivilized here is not seeking relief from poverty,It is the already too rich,taking everything they can from everyone,with thier financial tricks lies and lobbyists.

It makes me frustrated ,and the financial abuse the overrich do to the poor that is what's truly uncivilized,
people just don't realize the uberrich are thieves and often criminals in suits.it's not a crime if you cover theft with spin and legalese...but it is theft.no one seems to call these wealthy pigs out as the common thieves,yet if we have thoughts of guillotines and looting houses are we 'uncivilized' or wanting justice and relief from the soul grinding effects poverty has on us.

[BeyondGeography]

264. I have a film clip for you

It's called Why You Keep the Pet:

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[hrmjustin]

82. You are absolutely correct!

No more cuts to SS, Medicare, or Medicaid. Thank you for posting and you are in my prayers. I spend 200 a month usually on my 5 cats and that is a lot for me, but they give me great joy.

[CountAllVotes]

119. my 5 cats and that is a lot for me, but they give me great joy

If this is what gives you great joy in your life, I say keep all of them because life is too damn short to do without things that do give you great joy in life.

Many people don't know what joy is or means, no matter how much $$$ they have.

Needless to say, I agree w/you 100% and as for the person being discussed, little can be done for a person trying to live on so little except suggesting the same old same old.

* Check for low income power assistance (there are plans that can help some)
* Check for a low income telephone line (I have one -- allows 60 calls a month and that is it and the cost is about $4.00 a month and NO I don't have a long distance plan so I do not make not distance phone calls and NO I do not have a "cell phone" or an "iPhone" NOPE.)
* Internet, minimal service for $29.00 a month and yes, it pays for itself with money I manage to save using it ironically.
* Cat(s) -- only one left now the other two died last year and I'd give anything to have them back!!!!
* Food -- well ye old food bank ... at times no doubt
* Food stamps (IF you qualify that is ... I did not!)

Let's face it there is not much help out there for people in this boat which I know too well myself having had to live on $500.00 a month for a long time which then dropped to zero dollars per month for another year. I almost cracked up but at least I still had my cats to keep me from committing suicide.

It sucks like hell being in a boat like this and a few bucks here, a few bucks there cuts won't make much of a difference when the income is so damn low that it is below poverty level.

SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA AND SHAME ON YOU AMERICA FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO CARE FOR YOUR OWN CITIZENS!!!!

NO American should have to make such decisions such as "dumping" their cat/dog, a crummy internet connection to have contact w/the real world. No one should have to live like a nothing because everyone is equal IMO and everyone deserves to live a decent life.

[hrmjustin]

124. Very well said!

I think people need to start contacting the white house and congress about these cuts and say no.

[CountAllVotes]

146. I think writing actual letters and MAILING them is more effective

I have good results with my letter writing. No one (and I mean NO ONE) wants to receive one of "my letters" as I call them.

I write ferociously well when pissed. That is when I'll get on the keyboard and GO and you better believe they'll be hearing from me. If they reply via a robo letter, I'll send it back asking them if they know what they are responding to and did they even read my letter and send them yet another copy of "it"!

As for you and you wonderful cats, here are hugs for the lot of you!

Hang in there my friend!

[hrmjustin]

149. Hugs to you my friend!

[n2doc]

100. You are supposed to cut everything

You are supposed to cut all extraneous entertainment, sources of happiness, companionship, etc. Live in the cheapest, smallest, most dangerous conditions possible, by yourself, with no internet. Maybe if someone likes you they will donate a radio so you can listen to Rush. This MUST BE DONE so that Hedge Fund Managers can continue to have a 15% maximum tax rate on their carried Interest income. And the Military can continue to buy 300 million dollar a piece fighters that don't work. And because we will all die if something isn't done right now about Social Security running out of funds in 75 years or so.

This has been decreed by The Icon and his Followers, as well as all the Very Serious People in Washington. None of whom will ever need to sacrifice in the slightest, because they make the rules. You don't.

[OhioChick]

103. Some of the responses on this thread are quite alarming

I had to double check to make sure that I was in fact on DU.

[Glitterati]

107. Not to me

I've seen the exact same thing up close and real personal.

[Cleita]

145. Sometimes it's hard to believe it's DU. n/t

[JoePhilly]

296. Notice ...

the number of low post count folks who have joined the discussion.

The perpetually disgruntled and the trolls are a match made in heaven.

[Glitterati]

305. Oh yeah, it's such a GRAND conspiracy!!!!!!!

DU is being invaded! Run! Hide! Quick!

Of course, the Obama Cheerleader Blue Dogs just can't comprehend why someone might disagree with them and their Dear Leader! It MUST be a grand conspiracy of trolls! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Liberal_in_LA]

344. yup

[Duer 157099]

112. Goddammit, everyone in this thread with suggestions

of what else to cut is MISSING THE GODDAMN POINT!!!

Jesus H. Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit to Add: and if there was a middle-finger smilie, I'd add that one too.

[Autumn]

121. As my Grandma used to say, you can't get blood from a stone.

Of course Obama and the repukes will keep trying. The person in the OP has nothing left to cut. NOTHING. They are not even getting their basic needs met. I'd like the middle finger smiley too. And the you rock smiley, just for you.

[NRaleighLiberal]

127. thanks. missing the big picture, focusing on relatively meaningless minutiae.

[Nye Bevan]

125. In the past when I was poor, I did not have internet, a phone, or a cat.

And lest I be accused of being heartless, I hasten to add that I am only saying that this worked for me, and I am not claiming that this would necessarily work for the person quoted in the OP. What is essential for one person may not be a necessity for another person. (Also the internet did not exist back then, and there was a public phone booth fairly near my shared apartment).

[sabrina 1]

130. And how do you know that this person is not using the computer at the library?

Same way you used the local phone booth? I see many people using the library computer, because they cannot afford to buy one of their own. Others are lucky enough to have relatives who will buy gifts, such as computers, for them.

This sounds like you're saying that if only they did not have a computer they would be okay with cuts to their already below livable income.

I feel differently, I think that in today's world to be without a computer is the equivalent of being without a phone or a radio or tv in order to keep in touch with the society we live in. To isolate people from society because they are poor should not be an option in civilized society where we talk so much about 'equality' but in practice, apparently we do not really believe in it.

So, imo, the COLA should include computer costs, especially for people who do not drive, or cannot get out much. It is, in today's world, almost a necessity.

[Duer 157099]

131. If the point is: Things Could Always Be Worse

Thanks. WE ALL KNOW THAT. Always. No matter what, things could ALWAYS be worse.

Or better.

J.F.C.

[Cleita]

134. The person is living on SSDI. The amount is a clue so that means he is disabled.

Disabled means doctors visits. To maneuver our medical system you have to have a phone. When my husband fell sick, I found that I couldn't use pay phones anymore because calling doctors meant you often had to wait for a call back. Waiting at a phone booth was not a practical solution especially when you had to stand out in rain or snow waiting for a call back, or if someone wanted to use the phone, you might miss the call back. True, we didn't have internet back then. We did have pets though and I believe their companionship was therapeutic for my husband.

[Nye Bevan]

152. Fair point. I was young and healthy with no doctors appointments. (nt)

[Smarmie Doofus]

129. Cut down on all that walking. Who do ya think you are?

p.s. What's a "HUD cube"? It better not be one of those sheds I see in front of Home Depot.

Or is it the crate they come in?

[duffyduff]

132. The fact is $710 a month isn't enough to live on. It's probably SSI.

THAT is the point, and the neolib gang would love nothing better than to cut that and throw the disabled out on the streets.

The "suggestions" on this thread are outrageously cruel and clueless.

[lilithsrevenge12]

156. I think people are missing the point.

If this was one person, yes they could figure something out, but this is a huge chunk of Americans. When you say they could live without this or that, it is not a couple of glutinous of people, this is every American who lives around the poverty line.

Everyone on here is well aware of all the cuts for programs that assist the poor (welfare, transportation, etc), so to sit here and say it is so easy to find other ways is beyond insulting. When you say this person is wasting money on internet or a pet, you are saying millions of Americans shouldn't get these kinds of "luxuries" (which by the way is a hysterical thought within itself), even one as important as internet.

[Johnny2X2X]

157. Dignity

Whatever happened to having a right to live with dignity? Everyone has a right to dignity.

[appleannie1]

160. I was told by a freeper that internet and phone are luxuries. So is a pet.

I guess when we reach retirement we should just vegetate until we die.

[mntleo2]

165. Do not listen to the idiot commenters here whose "solutions"

...are often just judgmental BS!

First of all these commenters are blind idiots who do not get it. They do not want to admit that poverty is an institution it is not a "choice". This is because they are an enthusiastic part of living off the backs of the poor and prefer to maintain the illusion they are not doing that.

in·sti·tu·tion [in-sti-too-shuhn, -tyoo-]
1. A well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, as marriage: the institution of the family.
2.any established law, custom, etc.

The poverty institution is based on racism, sexism, ageism (including LGBTQ), classism and disability. This institution remains in place in spite of the horrible damage it causes because it benefits the upper classes.

To demonstrate this institution, there is a story to tell about my friend Margaret who is a proud Somalian immigrant and American citizen who I have told about before on DU:

Margaret's entire family was murdered in Somalia and she wound up in those immigration camps where she was raped and beaten. Margaret had converted from Islam and became a devout Catholic and the church sponsored her to come to America. This was support for Margaret's housing, her food, and all other necessities until she supposedly "got on her feet". She found a job and this sponsorship lasted 2 years, which she reimbursed through her "job". However when this sponsorship ended, the job she labored at did not even pay enough to afford rent much less food, transportation to get to her job, or anything else. Because she had to choose between getting to her work in order to keep it and all the other expensive necessities in order to keep that job, Margaret wound up homeless and living on the streets of Seattle. I met Margaret when after being on the street years, she finally qualified for transitional housing. By that time she had contracted the incurable TB that runs rampant in shelters and was struggling with her health with no insurance.

One time when we were demonstrating together for social justice, I asked Margaret about poverty in Somalia versus poverty in America. Which was worse? There is a war going on there, people starve to death, they are murdered, what could be worse than there? So I expected her to say being poor in Somalia was worse. But Margaret told me that being poor in America is far worse ~ and when you think about it this is because of the people who demand to live off her back. Margaret said:

"In Somalia when you have no home you go into the woods where indigenous people have lived for eons and they will teach you how to survive. In America all those people have been chased away generations ago and they no longer know how to survive that way and if you tried to go into the woods, which God gave to ALL of us, you would be arrested for stealing. When you are poor in America,you have to pay for everything. even going to the bathroom if you have no home. In Somalia, if you are hungry, you can glean your food from the roadside and if the farmer doesn't mind, in the fields, In America, yes, they have food banks and food stamps but for an immigrant like me, I am not qualified to receive food stamps and the food bank is often too far away, plus the food there has to be cooked and if you have no home, where can ou cook? In Somalia, if you need to cook a meal or keep warm, you build a fire, even in the cities, but in America you would be arrested for doing so ... "

Almost all of these necessities in America somebody has to profit from and thus they have to be paid for. Our society is almost 100% dependent on living off people paying through the nose in order to be on "the grid" whether for electricity, food, housing, plumbing, water, you name it.

So Kpete and any other low income person commenting here, do not listen to these dolts with dummass "suggestions". They do not get it. One of our former disabled and homeless DU members in Denver got forever banned in the library for committing the sin of being homeless even though she pays a higher proportion of taxes than the richest person there. So much for the dummass suggestion she "go to the library" to access the Internet that she already paid for, which the whole country now depends upon. They'll take her taxes, but to for her to use public facilities after paying them? People like these commenters are saying, "Thanks for the huge sacrifice you make paying those taxes out of your meager income, but go to hell only I should have that right!"

God, as a low income disabled senior, these people disgust me. I often say whenever I train people to lobby for low income issues, "The biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans openly hate the poor, Democrats just PRETEND they don't hate the poor."


Cat in Seattle
board member of http//www.mamapower.org People Organizing for Welfare Economic Rights (POWER)

[Cleita]

175. +1000

Best post on this thread.

[Octafish]

168. What a whiner.

No one should depend exclusively on Social Security. You should have salted away 20-percent of your salary. The 401(k)s were designed expressly for this. Another 20-percent of your salary should have gone toward a Trust Fund that you could use as annuity or something for petty cash. Investing wisely in the stock market is an excellent way to beat inflation. Don't forget that it's a great time for extraction industries blah blah blah blah.



Sarcasm off: The situation faced by Mr. Boothroyd is all too real for more than half of the United States, the richest and best country in the whole white world.

[7wo7rees]

176. +1

[Nye Bevan]

182. BTW according to the link, the person quoted would be eligible for food stamps but has not applied.

They really should.

[kickysnana]

315. They slashed food stamps to people who get HUD rent aid to about $15 a month.

For that $15 you have to send in a monthly breakdown with proof of your income and other things on time with the possibility that the harried worker could make a mistake that could take you to court, it happens or it gets lost in the mail and employers now charge about $20 each for any pay stub copies. After prices go up the next two years and he has eaten his cat then he would consider applying for food stamps not to starve. Do they make you do face to face appointments for food stamps yet? Transportation can be expensive. No bus service to the County Human Service office here for decades in St Paul (until the train starts running down there. Perhaps they will have to move that office, huh?)

[Milliesmom]

200. Food Stamps?

You can apply for food stamps, once you are on them you can apply for the free cell phone using your ID number from food stamps and then cancel your home phone, you can get 250 free minutes per month and they roll over. This program was started by President Reagan. You have to be receiving food stamps or some kind of assistance from the state, you are only allowed one discount rate on home phone or the free cell phone, not both , it's called T.A.P,(Telephone Assistance Plan ) with your landline account.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enrollment/Safelink/en/Public/NewHome.html

Good luck!

[Nye Bevan]

219. Sounds like excellent advice (nt)

[MFM008]

207. me to

im disabled. I get EBT . $120.00 for 1 adult for 1 month. period. Im grateful i have a good roof over my head, I would be homeless otherwise. And I cant work - and I dont cheat.
I have one question. When the next meteorite hits the planet perhaps the building fox news is in would be a good place for a crash landing?

[James48]

208. I believe Bernie Sanders.

He hasn't lied to me yet.

[SoCalDem]

209. one quibble.. $12 a can for coffee??

We buy Store brand here for $5.99 (0n sale) to $7.99 (reg price)

That said, the future for older folks is what we did as kids...roommates and shared costs.

It sucks, since our standards are different after a lifetime of living (as compared to teens & 20-somethings roughing it), but 3 compatible "elders" sharing that wifi and utilities would allow for more individual stability. The hazards would be different (people sneaking your Lipitor instead of your yogurt, soft drinks & chips). but I think more will find this a new way to live..

[Honeycombe8]

257. I think she means a BIG can of generic coffee.

I pay $8 for Starbucks...it's a vacuum bag...about 13 to 16 ozs. So I figure she's talking a BIG can like you see at Sam's, for commercial buyers.

[Rex]

213. Horace it is much worse then that.

The people that live well and dine well in D.C. live in a bubble that allows them to pretend 200k is an average salary.

[Catherina]

218. The catfood. No sarcasm intended. n/t

[undergroundpanther]

226. I live on 710 too

I betcha none of those millionaires who vote for thier own raises every year could cope with living on $710 bucks a month for a week, let alone years.

[madrchsod]

239. would`t that be 710 a day....

[Honeycombe8]

259. Question: Have you tried to get part time employment, if you're healthy enuf?

I'm 59 and looking at retirement years in the not too distant future. I was banking on finding part time employment, as long as my health would allow (fortunately, I'm healthy). But whether I would be able to find it is another matter.

[mntleo2]

267. Errrm SSI means you are DISABLED and cannot work for a wage

You have *no* idea what hoops you have to jump through in order to prove you are disabled when it comes to collecting SSI because being a Philadelphia lawyer AND and brain surgeon is about the only way to qualify. If you don't also have a myriad of mental issues from the hundreds of appointments you have to run every week, and with the paperwork and frustration alone, you're about guaranteed to be that way after they finish with you

[Honeycombe8]

269. What makes you think undergroundpanther is on SSI?

His/her post didn't say that.

[madrchsod]

238. my ss is around 600 a month.....

so i`m supposed to be happy with obama putting my social security on the table?

fuck that bullshit.....

[undergroundpanther]

245. I hate obama for caving in to rich fuckers who

get off on the idea of killing the poor via financial abuse. My SSI is around 698.I just said 710 because it is close to the actual number. It sucks your state does not help you more and toss a bit more crumbs your way.Different states add help or not with various programs. I really agree these nit pickers on this thread are just assholes. I am so very pissed at obama and I don't think he ever was a real democrat just talked us all up,than once in office he just continues bush's policies.

You know the re thugs have wheedled thier toxins into the dem party,look at that third way bullshit.I don't trust hillary because she's third way too. I fear the future,because there are no real challenges to plutocracy and too many people sold out orare too obedient to authority and used to financial abuse,they are running scared in a rat race,hiding from the fact this country is not the same as it 'always was' ,but it never was because none but the few win because they built and rigged the race.

[Honeycombe8]

262. I hope young people are seeing this and will consider this the next time they buy an iPhone.

I see young people spending recurring amounts on electronics, digital music, contracts for phones, etc. For them, their retirement is so far in the future that they are not concerned about it. I wasn't either.

But during those young years is the opportunity to put away a few dollars here and there, to save for the days when they are no longer young and healthy.

When they already have an iPhone, dated though it may be, they should think about putting that money away instead of getting the newest iPhone. Instead of paying for a contract phone, consider a pay-as-you phone (you can get smart phones for those, too). Instead of digital music, listen to music for free. It's on the radio. You can get by w/o listening to your digital music in the doctor's waiting room or on the elevator.

Even poor young people can sock away a few dollars here and there. Over decades, that money will grow enough to make a difference in cases such as the original OP.

There are savings calculators on the internet that will tell young people how much their savings will grow over the decades. Saving $20 a month for a 25 year old, on average (assuming some months will be less and some will be more), at 2% intereest (knowing that this low interest will surely grow in the future, so this is a low ball), the 25 year old will have about $15,000 in savings to help a bit starting at age 65. This would give her $50 extra a month for 25 years, at least. Probably more.

[Kolesar]

303. My Virgin pay-as-you-go phone plan is $86/year

...After paying $25 for the phone itself. I dropped the $31/month Sprint plan on principle. So there is $20/month toward savings.

Your comments on this thread are quite insightful.

[Honeycombe8]

319. What a deal! I have Tracfone pay as you go. Minutes roll forward. I pay about $200/yr,

but I suppose I should buy fewer minutes, now, since they're building up from rolling forward. I paid about $50 for the phone (it's a touch that has features - but IMO the old Motorola flip phone I had was better).

[Kolesar]

326. My plan has scant minutes. I use it seldomly

I bought it for "emergencies" or for brief shopping discussions with my wife.

[hasslehoff]

276. re

your american and your paying more for your internet then I am?(im canadian) whats wrong with you

[delrem]

277. Most people won't understand this post.

They'll prefer to turn it into a political football, pro/anti-Obama, pro/anti-chained-CPI, whatever.

The writer is actually explaining that with a certain very minimal income he/she is able to survive, but that there isn't anything left to cut, whether the cut is thru' inflation or whatever. Let me say that when it comes to the poor, this writer is fortunate and knows it.

The writer is explaining about a situation that only the impoverished experience, and not only that, but only those impoverished who have considerable skills at "making do" experience. This means for example choosing this month to buy this multi-KG bag of the best whole grain rice at the one store that sells such rice for cheapest. It means choosing another month for buying this large size and so best priced container of olive oil at, again, the one store that sells such olive oil cheapest. All with 100% nutritional value and 0% junk food value taken into account. And so on through the entire monthly food budget, allowing the writer to make it. The writer has zero "impulse buys". In other words, the writer is doing something that most contributors to this site couldn't begin to imagine. The writer is explaining why there is no place to "cut", in the writers economy, in order to bail out the banks or pay for another war.

The writer isn't saying that the rope is frayed. The writer is saying that the rope is just long enough so that using every tool in sight, the writer can eke out a tolerable existence - but no more. There is no room to cut. There just fucking well isn't. And most people who're forced to survive on such a budget, can't.

The subtext is that the writer is very bright and tho' the writer may have been stomped on considerably, the writer is capable of surviving. This puts the writer in the upper echelons, in my mind - but that's just a subjective judgment. What I mean by "subtext" is that the writer is writing for all those who aren't so capable. The writer is writing to explain not only his/her situation but the situation of all those who might mess up a similar situation, who will already die when they mess up the situation and who will all the more certainly die when the situation is made even more desperate by self-serving assholes who'd rather spend trillions on wars than a few thousand on saving some american lives.

Just sayin'.

[undergroundpanther]

293. thanks +1000,000

I agree with you.

When I talk about how tight shit is,it's not that I am asking for advice or anything,it's just as you said.

[markboxer]

279. Should come to my church

Almost every week we have someone up there talking about all the how to do to get the benefits.

[TimberValley]

280. Seems that the pet represents $50 that could be saved per month.

But that would still leave only $68 per month.

[delrem]

287. True, so the writer can do with a $50/mth cutback.

Not only that but the writer could convert that pet into a few days of hot meals, plus some soup which, bolstered with rice or noodles, could be converted into a weeks worth of lunch.

To say nothing of the fact that these people could save us even more money by hunting down squirrels in the parks, making room for another few dollars a month cutbacks. And we're just starting our savings program, so we can pay for the bailout of Goldman Sachs and the ongoing payments to Haliburton for the Iraq war.

Problem is that so many greedy people just aren't willing to make the small easy cuts, a dollar here, a few dollars there, to pay off the debt they engender by kiting loans in a self-made financial bubble and rushing into war - but we Dems are here to show how every little dollar can be squeezed. Like, e.g., my neighbors cat. Along with a zillion other pet cats. They obviously serve no purpose and we could easily harvest them and serve them up as gourmet bbq hot-meals to the elderly, instead of paying out SS. Don't ya think?

[kickysnana]

313. +1

[Kolesar]

314. "harvest them and serve them up as gourmet bbq hot-meals to the elderly, instead of paying out SS"

Oh, you're making a joke. It's only a joke!!

[Kolesar]

312. The point of Horace is to criticize the cuts to the cost of living adjustment to Social Security

A AARP article said that the cut would cumulatively mean that after 30 years of pension payments, one's pension would be 8% smaller.

That $710/month sounds like SSI minimum, not a SS benefit, though. I don't know if or how SSI is indexed, yet.
***
I bought the NOLO guide to SS because I am helping my brother plan his benefits. I was just reading this chapter yesterday. He is a quadriplegic.

[steve2470]

318. Slightly off topic, but I don't understand why RAISING THE CAP on Social Security taxes is never....

brought up in policy proposals ? Of course SS has NOTHING to do with the deficit and never has.

I really don't understand. Hell yes people don't like taxes but it's the most logical way to ensure the long-term survival of the SS system.

[frazzled]

321. Be against chained CPI, but don't mislead

This OP would like people to believe that the person receiving $710 a month is suddenly going to be receiving less than $710 a month if this measure is put into place (say, $690) ... forcing him (or her) to cut something out of their already tight budget. And everybody should know that this scenario is not correct. But many gullible people will believe it.

What the change would do (if it indeed is even put into place, which is highly doubtful) is that when the cost of living increase is added to what this person gets in subsequent years, it will be slightly less than it would have been under the old formula. So, for example, if the person would get $730 the next year, it would be perhaps only $723. That lesser hike in cost-of-living would begin to add up over the years and accelerate, so the problem is real ... because prices for all the things mentioned in the OP will go up, and living will therefore be more difficult. But as people have pointed out, the poorest and those over 85 will be protected from this effect, and their allotment will actually rise. (As usual, Obama always gears his policies to the least among us, though nobody ever notices.)

I oppose this change in the formula for Social Security like everyone else, but I'm damned if I'll go along with this kind of misleading sensationalism.

[Kolesar]

346. No kidding...eom

[Tempest]

328. My phone AND Internet is only $45 a month

He should look into other options.

[musical_soul]

347. Which company are you going through?

I'm paying almost ninety a month. I keep thinking anything cheaper requires dial up. Vonage might be a good alternative if I can get my family to go for it.

[treestar]

335. Nothing, it would not apply to that person

And it is also tied to higher taxes for the rich. There will also be Obamacare.

[southern_belle]

351. I'm in your same situation

[MichelleCollins68]

358. SSI Disability What should I cut out

After I read what every one had to say. I must say that my eye have open. I didn't know that we are going to lose everything. I have been homeless before and I don't want that life again. I can't stop thinking of my kids and what there lives will be like. It scares me to hell. All I have ever wanted for them is an better way of life and now I don't know if they will get that. I also have an Yorkie his name is Scruffy. He come from someone who beat him and kept his food away from him.He is my best friend. He is my therapy dog. See he saves my life ho can tell if my sugars are high or low among other things. He will always eat before me and all of his needs will be taken care of before mine. I am on SSI and I only get $721.00 an month. And it is not easy at all to live. I am having an hard time fining my own place to live right now I am living with my mother but that is for the time being. All I know is that we have to fine some way to keep our heads up and not lose ore pride. After we can only count on our self. Our pets needs us so we can't let them down.