GraniteGrok

The rules, I guess, are Obama's rules - if he doesn't like them, he ignores them (sorta like the Constitution with his power grabs - even Congress is starting to sound worried about an Imperial Presidency that FAR exceeds that of, well, Barack Hussein....Nixon?). 

The rules are that for a COLA increase to be given for Social Security recipients, there had to be inflation.  Seniors (and those that catered to seniors) complained - "what, no increase?" even though they did receive a 5.8% increase at the start of this year.

Let's be brutally honest and blunt here - like it or not, good idea or not, the first name for Social Security was "Widows Welfare"; the latter was rejected because it sent the wrong message politically.  After all, it was still a time where families and friends took care of their own instead of "outsourcing" that responsibility to the Government.  What is the norm with the Amish now used to be the norm of society as a whole - how times have changed when strangers have more responsibility for our elders than the families themselves.

And then the seniors get all riled up when the Government decides to change the rules?  Obama has given Social Security recipients MUCH cause to fear him:

• Obamacare will take away up to $500 Billion from seniors' Medicare
• No increase this year in the monthly checks.

So Obama, in a unilateral decision, has decided to rectify the latter by sending out bribes "in lieu" one-time payments of $250. 

Remember, the law of fundamental economics, as that of gravity, are not liable to repeal; summed up by:

TANSTAFL

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

So, where's the money going to come from to go out again?  Like you really have to guess?  Time lets the cat out of the bag:

On Oct. 14, Obama announced his desire to give seniors onetime checks for $250 in lieu of any cost-of-living increase in Social Security checks this year. The checks, costing about $14 billion, would be paid for with an increase in payroll taxes for people with incomes over $250,000.

One more time to the piggy bank?  After all, it seems like the Dems think that the rich are only there for other peoples' enrichment.

Used to be that our elected officials used to be careful of Private Property - BOTH Democrats and Republicans.  Now?  Democrats have their hands out - and some Republicans seem to just smile as the Democrat hands

After all, their means justifies the seniors' ends (and seniors vote - a lot and religiously regularly [have to be politically correct, eh?  wink, wink])

One cannot fight the enemy, or fix a problem, unless one is willing to name it.  Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with the method or the reason or the result - this is ONLY one thing this can be called:

Redistribution: the taking from those who have earned it, to give to those that have not earned it, for strictly political reasons.