Take control of your brain health with Staying Sharp! Try it today.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
162
Views

Re: After The Election

162 Views
Message 11 of 26

@GailL1 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

 

 

  

First off, Trump wants to ELIMINATE the COLA for Federal Retirees, and that's just because its easier for him to do than to freeze SS COLAs, for now.

 

Second, the COLA covers most inflation EXCEPT medical care, which for Seniors gets more significant every year, so any Sr who votes Republican is either not paying any attention to how their expenses are changing or figures they won't live long enough for it to become a problem.

 

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER.

then perhaps you'll avoid having your income shrink again in 2019.


I think perhaps you might need to tighten up your facts.

 

Federal News Radio - Retiree COLA likely to trump federal pay raise

 

Those who get COLA increases - Federal Retirees, Military, Veterans, SS beneficiaries - have law to back it up and thus NO President can change it - only Congress can.  That also includes any change to the CPI used for the basis of it.

 

 

 

Notice it says this at the reputable link provided concerning (active) Federal employees :

 

Pay for federal workers has little or no connection to the rise or fall of living costs.

 

Although the FEPCA pay law sets a process for regular annual catch-up-with-industry pay raises, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama largely ignored it. Pay raises are set by the President. Congress has the power to raise or lower that amount.

 

After three years without a January federal pay raise President Obama authorized a 2.1 percent increase for both federal and military personnel in his last year in office.

 

The first pay raise proposed by President Trump was a 1.4 percent across-the-board adjustment for civilians with another 0.5 percent allocated for locality pay raises. Workers in high-private-sector wage cities like Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles got the maximum increases.

 

In his budget for 2019 President Trump has proposed a pay freeze. Some workers would continue to get within-grade (WIG) longevity raises worth approximately 3 percent. But there would be no across-the-board January adjustment unless Congress overrides the president.

 

. . . . Retirees on the other hand are almost certain to get a COLA-based adjustment. Retirees got 2 percent this year, 0.3 percent in 2017, zero in 2016, 1.7 percent in 2015. Their highest COLA—of 3.6 percent in January 2012—came after two years (2011 and 2010 )without any COLA. The year before that (in 2009) they got a 5.8 percent inflation adjustment.

 

 

 


One thing you over look again when you just post what you find in an article which can mean nothing. It is how the matter is interpreted. Dictator Trump will say no cola and it is gone. If he controls the SC there is no one to change that. Now if Dictator Trump does not control Congress or the courts then the COLA might survive. You have to give the full story and you can not and never will be able to do that on articles covering only part of a problem.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
162
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
169
Views

Re: After The Election

169 Views
Message 12 of 26

@Olderscout66 wrote:

 

 

  

First off, Trump wants to ELIMINATE the COLA for Federal Retirees, and that's just because its easier for him to do than to freeze SS COLAs, for now.

 

Second, the COLA covers most inflation EXCEPT medical care, which for Seniors gets more significant every year, so any Sr who votes Republican is either not paying any attention to how their expenses are changing or figures they won't live long enough for it to become a problem.

 

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER.

then perhaps you'll avoid having your income shrink again in 2019.


I think perhaps you might need to tighten up your facts.

 

Federal News Radio - Retiree COLA likely to trump federal pay raise

 

Those who get COLA increases - Federal Retirees, Military, Veterans, SS beneficiaries - have law to back it up and thus NO President can change it - only Congress can.  That also includes any change to the CPI used for the basis of it.

 

 

 

Notice it says this at the reputable link provided concerning (active) Federal employees :

 

Pay for federal workers has little or no connection to the rise or fall of living costs.

 

Although the FEPCA pay law sets a process for regular annual catch-up-with-industry pay raises, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama largely ignored it. Pay raises are set by the President. Congress has the power to raise or lower that amount.

 

After three years without a January federal pay raise President Obama authorized a 2.1 percent increase for both federal and military personnel in his last year in office.

 

The first pay raise proposed by President Trump was a 1.4 percent across-the-board adjustment for civilians with another 0.5 percent allocated for locality pay raises. Workers in high-private-sector wage cities like Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles got the maximum increases.

 

In his budget for 2019 President Trump has proposed a pay freeze. Some workers would continue to get within-grade (WIG) longevity raises worth approximately 3 percent. But there would be no across-the-board January adjustment unless Congress overrides the president.

 

. . . . Retirees on the other hand are almost certain to get a COLA-based adjustment. Retirees got 2 percent this year, 0.3 percent in 2017, zero in 2016, 1.7 percent in 2015. Their highest COLA—of 3.6 percent in January 2012—came after two years (2011 and 2010 )without any COLA. The year before that (in 2009) they got a 5.8 percent inflation adjustment.

 

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
169
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
175
Views

Re: After The Election

175 Views
Message 13 of 26

@Olderscout66 wrote:

First off, Trump wants to ELIMINATE the COLA for Federal Retirees, and that's just because its easier for him to do than to freeze SS COLAs, for now.

 

Looks like another one of "those " facts.

 

But, on the other hand, there are posters who think the retired feds get too much anyway, so......

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
175
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
193
Views

Re: After The Election

193 Views
Message 14 of 26

As with Trump’s relationship to other kinds of economic data ― fudging the numbers when it suits him, claiming the credit only when it makes him look good

 

 

The Trump administration would like you to believe that poverty doesn’t really exist in the United States of America.

 

First, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N Nikki Haley argued in June that it was “patently ridiculous” for the United Nations to study poverty in America, a waste of “time and resources.” Then President Donald

 

Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers released a 66-page report all but asserting that poverty isn’t a problem in the country. In service of the administration’s goal of imposing work requirements on any anti-poverty program it can, like health insurance or housing, it’s declaring victory in the war on poverty launched a half-century ago. The true problem, the administration claims, is not that people are poor, but that they’ve been made lazy and have to be forced to work.

 

They couldn’t be more wrong. Poverty exists, and the administration’s favored policy changes will only make it dramatically worse.

 

As with Trump’s relationship to other kinds of economic data ― fudging the numbers when it suits him, claiming the credit only when it makes him look good—the administration’s argument that poverty doesn’t exist in America is built on a deeply questionable basis. Rather than relying on the official poverty numbers released by the Census Bureau, the CEA would rather use an alternative measure based on how much families spend, not how much money they have.

 

On its face, it’s a strange way to measure poverty — not by the money in your bank account, but by what you buy, which can be funded by cash but also simply racking up debt. And indeed, when two economists examined this way of measuring poverty earlier this year, they found the method doesn’t hold up. The other measures — the official poverty numbers, the supplemental ones, measures of material hardship, measures of how many people lack decent work— have their flaws, but they all point to poverty rates multiple times higher. In fact, the consumption-only measure would lead one to believe that poverty dropped significantly during the Great Recession, a time of mass unemployment and foreclosures that decimated people’s finances.

 

We have other ways of knowing that poverty is still a huge problem in the U.S. You can just ask poor people whether they exist.

 

If Trump and his advisers want to claim that it’s been solved, they have a lot of people to explain themselves to.

 

They should tell that to the more than half a million people in the U.S. who are homeless on any given night — including almost 200,000 who have no shelter at all — a number that is widely considered to be an undercount.

 

The Trump administration points out that, according to this count, “99.9 percent of people had shelter and 99.8 percent were housed.” Even if that’s accurate, those who constitute the administration’s rounding error still go without a home in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

 

If the Trump administration really thinks poverty doesn’t exist in the U.S., they should tell that to the 15.6 million American families who were food insecure for at least part of 2016, meaning they had limited access to food because they couldn’t afford what they needed. More than 6 million of those families went through times where someone in the household had to cut back on how much they ate and their eating patterns were disrupted because they couldn’t afford enough food. It’s true, as the CEA report notes, that “the vast majority of Americans have reliable access to food.” But even a small bout of cutting back on nutrition has huge health impacts, particularly on children.

 

The administration should tell it to the people teetering on the edge of financial ruin, including the 7 percent of adults who say they struggle to get by and the 40 percent who wouldn’t be able to cover an unexpected expense of just $400.

 

And they should tell it to the rising number of families living in extreme poverty, surviving off of a mere $2 per person per day. That’s not only considered severe here at home; that kind of hardship is what the World Bank would dub extreme poverty anywhere in the world. Many of these families, researchers have found, have no money coming in — not through work and not through public benefits ― all in one of the richest countries on the planet.

 

15.6 million American families were food insecure for at least part of 2016, meaning they had limited access to food because they couldn’t afford what they needed.

 

 

Source - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-covert-trump-poverty-america_us_5b5b4f23e4b0fd5c73cf134...

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
193
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
164
Views

Re: After The Election

164 Views
Message 15 of 26

@GailL1 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

More people are working and wages are rising - abiet slowly for a lot of reasons.

 

Now whether any good things which a person is experiencing at the time offset whatever they might consider bad things, if any in their mind - I don't know.

 

Think about why the average American votes the way they do - especially those who don't keep up with any current events - or what might be the "buzz of the day" and just vote for what is happening in their life - big or small stuff.

 

Image result for bloomberg real wages

 


 


Wages have risen - check the BLS data.

BLS News Release 07/18/2018 - USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS SECOND QUARTER 2018

This BLS News Release is interesting because it also give a current day measure of how each group sizes up relative to their compensation and it is also compared historically.

 

"Real" Wages haven't because they are adjusted by inflation.  If we all got raises based on inflation - we would have had big, big raises in the 70s-80s.  "Real" wages measures the buying power of the earnings.

 

Don't you agree that a person should strive to better themselves in this financial sense and educational hierarchy - that is a sure fire, proof positive way to get a higher wage.

 

The "cost" of employment has also risen - higher cost for benefits or state/federal mandates like unemployment insurance.  Although this is a "cost" of employment, paid by the employer, it is still a consideration of total compensation for employees.

 

There are many reasons why wages aren't growing at a greater clip - 

we have lots of people going into the labor market - young, old, educated, uneducated, citizens, non-citizens, they are all out there trying to get a job and many of the aren't that picky about what they are worth when they need a job.

How can a person with just a high school diploma, or not even that sometimes, with few to no skills even ask for a higher wage until they can, hopefully, prove their worth.

 

Give it some time for employment to even out - meaning that those who can prove their worth will, perhaps by finding a higher paying job or ask for a raise and the others, well, guess they can just wait around for the government to dictate a higher wage for them, incrementally, as usually the case.

 

Now, getting back to the topic of this thread - whatever they are making, if they are content, and if they vote, it will have a bearing on how they vote - because to most people, voting is based on their feelings about their own life at the time they mark their choice.  That and the (D) or (R) beside their candidate's name on the ballot - even if they know little else about them.

 


What you saying is the typical type of info the far right Reb. hope will carry the day, and in the past it has some time. There is a lot more this time. We have a mentally challenged person in the WH who is the most corrupt person to ever hold the office of President. He has been this way his whole life. His business was run as a NY Mob, and he was never successful at anything but reality TV. He has lied all his life about everything, and as President he still lies just as much. He has governed by Ex Order, and new interpretation of laws. He has imposed Tariffs illegally since he should have gone through Congress. He has stolen children at the border. He is building camps to hold over 100,000 people and hiding it in the armed forces budget. He is taking over the court system where ever he can, and involving the military in the court system. He is making secret deals with foreign Dictators, and creating chaos's with our allies. He is trying to destroy NATO. He gave us a fake tax law, and is increasing the National debt faster than any President ever has. We have been warned that the country will be  broke shortly if he keeps doing this. He and his friends are making huge profits from the govt. One part time adv. made over 3 million through a short sale made before he started his service, then made it happen collected his money and quit. His Sec. of Commerce made a ton by not selling inv. he told the watchdog he did. He has had Cabernet Sec. quit (fired) for stealing from the govt.

Right now we are still living under the end of what Obama created as the economy can lag up to 3 years behind. By the end of this year we should start to feel what Trump has done. Coke just raised its prices  thanks to Trump. Harley moved thanks to Trump. Business who use the metals Tariffed by Trump are starting to close, or lay off, or raise prices.

Lets hope the American people are smart enough to see that Trump and his supporters have made us the laughing stock of the world, and throw out every Reb. this Nov. so we can start to end the mess, and get rid of Trump in 2020.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
164
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
163
Views

Re: After The Election

163 Views
Message 16 of 26

@gordyfl wrote:

Is there a clear message coming from their candidates ?

Is it what the people in various communities around the country want to hear?

 

I received a campaign literature from a Democratic Congressman running for re-election in my area. I read it briefly then tossed it into the garbage. 

 

  • He said he will stand up to "Extremist Republicans" who want to privatize Social Security and Medicare.

 

  • He sated that he voted against Trump's tax scam.

 

  • He said he would strengthen ObamaCare and pre-existing conditions.

 

  • He said he would fight for seniors - something about assisted living.

 

Economic,  financial and personal experience data is gonna be a big deal to lots of people in the coming election.  Many people don't look too much past their own pocketbooks and day to day living experiences.  So I see all this as a determining factor in the up and coming election.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

Right now things look pretty good - COLA data, which will come out just a few days before the election,  is now on track to be the biggest in recent history - maybe in a decade.

 

Didn't know that. If those numbers are good for seniors, that would be a boost for Trump and Republicans right before the election - even though the COLA has little to do with Trump's policies.

I remember years ago in a town that I grew up, the town would pave the streets at election time, I beleive to show voters where their money is going. I remember driving to the polls many times having to take a detour to get to the polling station. Most politicians were re-elected.

 

Think about why the average American votes the way they do - especially those who don't keep up with any current events - or what might be the "buzz of the day" and just vote for what is happening in their life - big or small stuff.

 

I agree. That's the way it is. However, there seems to be a lot of anger this year, which could bring out a lot of voters in an off-year election. That's usually good news for Democrats. Can't rule that out.

 

 

vote under attack.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Your SS COLA looks like it will cover most of the higher costs you'll experience thanks to Trump's disasterous economic bungling, but if you think you should back Trumper because for a time you'll tread water income-wise, you are a big part of the problem.

 

First off, Trump wants to ELIMINATE the COLA for Federal Retirees, and that's just because its easier for him to do than to freeze SS COLAs, for now.

 

Second, the COLA covers most inflation EXCEPT medical care, which for Seniors gets more significant every year, so any Sr who votes Republican is either not paying any attention to how their expenses are changing or figures they won't live long enough for it to become a problem.

 

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER.

then perhaps you'll avoid having your income shrink again in 2019.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
163
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
166
Views

Re: After The Election

166 Views
Message 17 of 26

@GailL1 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

More people are working and wages are rising - abiet slowly for a lot of reasons.

 

Now whether any good things which a person is experiencing at the time offset whatever they might consider bad things, if any in their mind - I don't know.

 

Think about why the average American votes the way they do - especially those who don't keep up with any current events - or what might be the "buzz of the day" and just vote for what is happening in their life - big or small stuff.

 

Image result for bloomberg real wages

 


 


Wages have risen - check the BLS data.

BLS News Release 07/18/2018 - USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS SECOND QUARTER 2018

This BLS News Release is interesting because it also give a current day measure of how each group sizes up relative to their compensation and it is also compared historically.

 

"Real" Wages haven't because they are adjusted by inflation.  If we all got raises based on inflation - we would have had big, big raises in the 70s-80s.  "Real" wages measures the buying power of the earnings.

 

Don't you agree that a person should strive to better themselves in this financial sense and educational hierarchy - that is a sure fire, proof positive way to get a higher wage.

 

The "cost" of employment has also risen - higher cost for benefits or state/federal mandates like unemployment insurance.  Although this is a "cost" of employment, paid by the employer, it is still a consideration of total compensation for employees.

 

There are many reasons why wages aren't growing at a greater clip - 

we have lots of people going into the labor market - young, old, educated, uneducated, citizens, non-citizens, they are all out there trying to get a job and many of the aren't that picky about what they are worth when they need a job.

How can a person with just a high school diploma, or not even that sometimes, with few to no skills even ask for a higher wage until they can, hopefully, prove their worth.

 

Give it some time for employment to even out - meaning that those who can prove their worth will, perhaps by finding a higher paying job or ask for a raise and the others, well, guess they can just wait around for the government to dictate a higher wage for them, incrementally, as usually the case.

 

Now, getting back to the topic of this thread - whatever they are making, if they are content, and if they vote, it will have a bearing on how they vote - because to most people, voting is based on their feelings about their own life at the time they mark their choice.  That and the (D) or (R) beside their candidate's name on the ballot - even if they know little else about them.

 


This is the First Paragraph of the Information you linked to..................

 

Median weekly earnings of the nation's 115.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $876 in the second quarter of 2018 (not seasonally adjusted

 

Wage and Salary Workers -

 

It's been widely reported that the majority of Top Management - i.e. Salary Employees - received a average $1200 One time Bonus after the GOP Tax Cut for the Already Rich & Politically Powerful...........................................

 

Hourly Workers got Squat

 

So once again - that information can not simply be accepted as Black & White

 

Also in the same link there was this little nugget

 

Among the major occupational groups, persons employed full time in management, professional, and related occupations had the highest median weekly earnings—$1,463 for men and $1,080 for women. Men and women employed in service jobs earned the least, $615 and$512, respectively. (See table 4.)

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
166
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
170
Views

Re: After The Election

170 Views
Message 18 of 26

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

More people are working and wages are rising - abiet slowly for a lot of reasons.

 

Now whether any good things which a person is experiencing at the time offset whatever they might consider bad things, if any in their mind - I don't know.

 

Think about why the average American votes the way they do - especially those who don't keep up with any current events - or what might be the "buzz of the day" and just vote for what is happening in their life - big or small stuff.

 

Image result for bloomberg real wages

 


 


Wages have risen - check the BLS data.

BLS News Release 07/18/2018 - USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS SECOND QUARTER 2018

This BLS News Release is interesting because it also give a current day measure of how each group sizes up relative to their compensation and it is also compared historically.

 

"Real" Wages haven't because they are adjusted by inflation.  If we all got raises based on inflation - we would have had big, big raises in the 70s-80s.  "Real" wages measures the buying power of the earnings.

 

Don't you agree that a person should strive to better themselves in this financial sense and educational hierarchy - that is a sure fire, proof positive way to get a higher wage.

 

The "cost" of employment has also risen - higher cost for benefits or state/federal mandates like unemployment insurance.  Although this is a "cost" of employment, paid by the employer, it is still a consideration of total compensation for employees.

 

There are many reasons why wages aren't growing at a greater clip - 

we have lots of people going into the labor market - young, old, educated, uneducated, citizens, non-citizens, they are all out there trying to get a job and many of the aren't that picky about what they are worth when they need a job.

How can a person with just a high school diploma, or not even that sometimes, with few to no skills even ask for a higher wage until they can, hopefully, prove their worth.

 

Give it some time for employment to even out - meaning that those who can prove their worth will, perhaps by finding a higher paying job or ask for a raise and the others, well, guess they can just wait around for the government to dictate a higher wage for them, incrementally, as usually the case.

 

Now, getting back to the topic of this thread - whatever they are making, if they are content, and if they vote, it will have a bearing on how they vote - because to most people, voting is based on their feelings about their own life at the time they mark their choice.  That and the (D) or (R) beside their candidate's name on the ballot - even if they know little else about them.

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
170
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
178
Views

Re: After The Election

178 Views
Message 19 of 26

If that was the example of what they guy wanted to be re elected, then I am correct all of the things that he was running on, were and are very weak arguments to get elected. 
That is why I am saying that the  message needs to change. and adapted to the area that they are running  for re election. or election. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
178
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
175
Views

Re: After The Election

175 Views
Message 20 of 26

Is there a clear message coming from their candidates ?

Is it what the people in various communities around the country want to hear?

 

I received a campaign literature from a Democratic Congressman running for re-election in my area. I read it briefly then tossed it into the garbage. 

 

  • He said he will stand up to "Extremist Republicans" who want to privatize Social Security and Medicare.

 

  • He sated that he voted against Trump's tax scam.

 

  • He said he would strengthen ObamaCare and pre-existing conditions.

 

  • He said he would fight for seniors - something about assisted living.

 

Economic,  financial and personal experience data is gonna be a big deal to lots of people in the coming election.  Many people don't look too much past their own pocketbooks and day to day living experiences.  So I see all this as a determining factor in the up and coming election.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

Right now things look pretty good - COLA data, which will come out just a few days before the election,  is now on track to be the biggest in recent history - maybe in a decade.

 

Didn't know that. If those numbers are good for seniors, that would be a boost for Trump and Republicans right before the election - even though the COLA has little to do with Trump's policies.

I remember years ago in a town that I grew up, the town would pave the streets at election time, I beleive to show voters where their money is going. I remember driving to the polls many times having to take a detour to get to the polling station. Most politicians were re-elected.

 

Think about why the average American votes the way they do - especially those who don't keep up with any current events - or what might be the "buzz of the day" and just vote for what is happening in their life - big or small stuff.

 

I agree. That's the way it is. However, there seems to be a lot of anger this year, which could bring out a lot of voters in an off-year election. That's usually good news for Democrats. Can't rule that out.

 

 

vote under attack.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
175
Views