Shopsmith Forums

Once again, our Government is trying to mess with what makes the world go 'round.

This time they are proposing, yet again, a new way to calculate the CPI. The new method, they say, would better reflect the true cost of living and would result in "only a slightly lower CPI". Less than 1/2 of 1% they say. Hardly enough of a change to notice.

While that may be true for some, a 1/2 of 1% decrease could be considered significant. For someone on a fixed income of $1200 a month, a 1.5% cola would yield an $18 a month increase while a 1.25% increase would yield only a $15 increase. Seen another way - this would cause a $3.00 a month loss of subsistence.

I guess it is hard to see the significance of a $3.00 loss when there are important issues like how many billions of dollars of aid to give to foreign countries like Egypt, Iran and Pakistan.

Google "Chained CPI Cola" if you want to better understand this burr that has gotten me.

dusty wrote:Once again, our Government is trying to mess with what makes the world go 'round.

This time they are proposing, yet again, a new way to calculate the CPI. The new method, they say, would better reflect the true cost of living and would result in "only a slightly lower CPI". Less than 1/2 of 1% they say. Hardly enough of a change to notice.

While that may be true for some, a 1/2 of 1% decrease could be considered significant. For someone on a fixed income of $1200 a month, a 1.5% cola would yield an $18 a month increase while a 1.25% increase would yield only a $15 increase. Seen another way - this would cause a $3.00 a month loss of subsistence.

I guess it is hard to see the significance of a $3.00 loss when there are important issues like how many billions of dollars of aid to give to foreign countries like Egypt, Iran and Pakistan.

Google "Chained CPI Cola" if you want to better understand this burr that has gotten me.

Dusty,

Since the revised method results in a reduced inflation number my guess is the intention is to further obscure real inflation. The reduction in payouts to seniors is just icing on the cake. Top of the fold story in today's paper "The World Braces for Retirement Catastrophe". Hmmmmm....

Jack

Dusty look at this way it is an entitlement that is given to you out of the kindness of their heart.

That probably put Dusty into orbit

Sorry Dusty didn't mean to launch you.


Dusty I'm in your shoes and what those in power wants everyone else to forget is Social Security was a mandatory pseudo insurance program that every legally working American and their employer was forced to participate in with the promise of a reasonable return upon reaching retirement.

Today it is referred to as an entitlement with the implication as I stated above and we all know that is non sense.

However the Government is going broke because people still haven't figured out you can't spend more than you make.

And in the process we (everyone on Social Security) are getting the shaft.

Ed in Tampa wrote:Dusty look at this way it is an entitlement that is given to you out of the kindness of their heart.

That probably put Dusty into orbit

Sorry Dusty didn't mean to launch you.


Dusty I'm in your shoes and what those in power wants everyone else to forget is Social Security was a mandatory pseudo insurance program that every legally working American and their employer was forced to participate in with the promise of a reasonable return upon reaching retirement.

Today it is referred to as an entitlement with the implication as I stated above and we all know that is non sense.

However the Government is going broke because people still haven't figured out you can't spend more than you make.

And in the process we (everyone on Social Security) are getting the shaft.

What every discussion of this sort always fails to acknowledge is that "we the voting people" allow this to happen. Congress would not be able to do these things except that they are not opposed.

dusty wrote:What every discussion of this sort always fails to acknowledge is that "we the voting people" allow this to happen. Congress would not be able to do these things except that they are not opposed.

Your right but when a guy looks you straight in the face and lies through his teeth is it hard to convince people the guy is lying.

I doubt any Congress person ever said if elected I will screw those on Social Security. Everyone said I'm for the small guy, the guy that needs help, the elderly that are on fixed income.

And they were right they were for us, they go right for our pockets and empty them out.

dusty wrote:What every discussion of this sort always fails to acknowledge is that "we the voting people" allow this to happen. Congress would not be able to do these things except that they are not opposed.

My personal opinion is that most good and decent people do not run for public office. The relentless attacks by PACs and other organizations take half truths, innuendo and at times out right lies and flood the media. I've run for public office (Montana State Senate) and even at that tiny level, there were others who lied in public forums, contradicting facts I stated (later apologizing in private for their "error" when no one was around to hear).

Many who run for office, especially Governor and above do it with power and glory as goals. Why is it a person with a personal wealth of millions will spend part of their own fortune and much of other people's fortunes to win a job that pays less than two hundred thousand a year?

Grassroots campaigns are a possibility, but money denies and inhibits them. Years ago Ralph Nader was listed federally as a qualifying candidate for President. When it came time for the televised Presidential debates, he and the other 3rd party candidates were denied access. At one point he was denied admittance to be in the same location as the broadcast. Those broadcasts were organized and paid for by a committee comprised of Democratic and Republican Party officials.

If the ballot consists of vampires or brain eating zombies, and ONLY those choices, which do you choose? I believe in this country and the citizens who help it thrive and grow. We are stuck with a bunch of blood sucking fleshing eating miscreants trying to take everything for their own devices and in control of the gold. I am more than happy to support and vote for someone with honesty and integrity in their heart (I'm not sure I have either of those anymore and I've reached a point where I have neither the energy nor ambition to work for the benefit of others while staving off the attacks do the PACs).

At one time the term "public servant" had a truthful meaning.

I will leave the rest of this discussion to those who believe they can make the change.

Be well,
Ben

benush26 wrote:My personal opinion is that most good and decent people do not run for public office. The relentless attacks by PACs and other organizations take half truths, innuendo and at times out right lies and flood the media. I've run for public office (Montana State Senate) and even at that tiny level, there were others who lied in public forums, contradicting facts I stated (later apologizing in private for their "error" when no one was around to hear).

Many who run for office, especially Governor and above do it with power and glory as goals. Why is it a person with a personal wealth of millions will spend part of their own fortune and much of other people's fortunes to win a job that pays less than two hundred thousand a year?

Grassroots campaigns are a possibility, but money denies and inhibits them. Years ago Ralph Nader was listed federally as a qualifying candidate for President. When it came time for the televised Presidential debates, he and the other 3rd party candidates were denied access. At one point he was denied admittance to be in the same location as the broadcast. Those broadcasts were organized and paid for by a committee comprised of Democratic and Republican Party officials.

If the ballot consists of vampires or brain eating zombies, and ONLY those choices, which do you choose? I believe in this country and the citizens who help it thrive and grow. We are stuck with a bunch of blood sucking fleshing eating miscreants trying to take everything for their own devices and in control of the gold. I am more than happy to support and vote for someone with honesty and integrity in their heart (I'm not sure I have either of those anymore and I've reached a point where I have neither the energy nor ambition to work for the benefit of others while staving off the attacks do the PACs).

At one time the term "public servant" had a truthful meaning.

I will leave the rest of this discussion to those who believe they can make the change.

Be well,
Ben

2 1/2 hours later and no recommended changes yet.

I have said this before, but much could be gained by making it illegal for lawyers to hold public office. I say that partly in jest, but much is meaningful. Fat chance of lawyers denying themselves the 'opportunity' to 'serve'.

Sad you have given up on the system.

This is why I think 'political correctness' is an oxymoron in more ways than one!

End mini rant.

JPG40504 wrote:2 1/2 hours later and no recommended changes yet.

I have said this before, but much could be gained by making it illegal for lawyers to hold public office. I say that partly in jest, but much is meaningful. Fat chance of lawyers denying themselves the 'opportunity' to 'serve'.

Sad you have given up on the system.

This is why I think 'political correctness' is an oxymoron in more ways than one!

End mini rant.

Simple solution, JPG: just don't vote for 'em and they won't get elected. It isn't as if their professions are a secret when they run. But I'm curious what exactly would be gained? Lawyers are just a reflection of society. If clients didn't pay their lawyers to act a certain way, lawyers wouldn't act that way, pure and simple. (Incidentally, one of the best things about not being in private practice is getting to do what one thinks is correct, without worrying about the unreasonable demands of certain clients).

algale wrote:Simple solution, JPG: just don't vote for 'em and they won't get elected. It isn't as if their professions are a secret when they run. But I'm curious what exactly would be gained? Lawyers are just a reflection of society. If clients didn't pay their lawyers to act a certain way, lawyers wouldn't act that way, pure and simple. (Incidentally, one of the best things about not being in private practice is getting to do what one thinks is correct, without worrying about the unreasonable demands of certain clients).

Simple? Sure! For 'me'. The original problem is all those other folks voting 'the wrong folks in'.

Then there is the 'issue' of 'who' runs in the first place.

The private(pocket residents) ones are not the ones who disturb me. The ones practicing in legislatures are the ones.

IIUC they are taught logic(the mindful type), but my observations are they use their knowledge of it to 'outsmart' those without such knowledge.

i.e. "Everyone I know that is bald wears hats, so you are bald, therefore you wear a hat." Yes folks, that is not a logical conclusion! And sloppy 1st premise to boot!;)

I've posted this before;

I spent the summer of my 14th year, with my uncle's family, on his ranch, in Snowflake.

Uncle Jake, (Gene knew him, I believe) taught me about "servicing." (It's a biological, or animal husbandry, term.)

Uncle Jake, later became a state congressman, Speaker of the Az House, and later, a state Senator. He was also the uncle of the Junior Senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake.

He wasn't the wisest public servant. He'd take ILLEGAL gifts, and then, vote AGAINST the gift giver.

As long as I knew Uncle Jake, he never "serviced" the public. He did what he thought was right, or what his constituents wanted. (Usually both were the same thing.)

If only the rest of government, (including Jeff!) would follow that lead.

steve