Funny, since this is the first time in 34 years these people HAVEN'T gotten a raise. Do you get a raise every year? Doubt it. Also funny since the CPI went DOWN for probably the first time in that 34 years this year as well. They don't need a damn cost of living raise. Nor should they get one. Medical premiums are costing you more? Guess what-they're costing everyone more-including the young people keeping you in the style to which the AARP thinks you should be accustomed.

I think, if you don't plan for your entirely forseeable retirement, the gov't should keep a (communal) roof over your head, and basic food in your tummy, and basic medical care. Period. Never going to happen, but that's what it should be. We also need to drop SS, but that's another topic.

I'd love to see the government drop Social Security.

56% popularity isn't high enough for you?

Check out Mithc McConnell's.

56%? Most polls have him at about 40%. Rasmussen-who uses likely voters-has his index at -10.

momof4

Funny, since this is the first time in 34 years these people HAVEN'T gotten a raise.

=======================================

And yet, every senator and representative office budget was increased by 6%. They always seem to find a way to increase thier budgets, if not salaries, and yet everyone else gets nothing.

I have GOT to run for office.

Many of us paying for this have seen our pay decrease - either 100% due to layoffs, or involuntary unpaid leave, aka furlough.

In the end, when there is not enough income to sustain the spending and none will lend, this will end. I'm convinced we'll see it.

I think the headline would be more accurate if it read, "Obama Tries to Buy Off Seniors."

Speaking as a senior (age 71), I find it ludicrous and insulting that the Obama administration thinks they can purchase my support for $250. My friends all feel the same.

There are some things, like the kind of legacy we are leaving for our children and grandchildren, that are way, way more important to us than a few dollars from the hand of a would-be tyrant.

I don't think you need to worry about this at all. Consider: How many seniors, most of whom hate the proposals for health care reform, will suddenly switch to supporting it just because Obama gave them $250? Answer: Very damn few.

I'm going to send my check to the GOP. It looks like a tidal wave is starting to form, and I want to add whatever I can to its impetus.

This is why I believe that Republicans have actually made a significant tactical error in attacking Obama for supposedly wanting to cut Medicare and terminate the elderly. The bottom line is that there is no way the Republicans can outbid the Dems for the seniors vote without also sacrificing their economic credibility.

I suspect that Obama and his advisors realize this. He's a smart guy who knows to pick his battles. He has most likely wrong-footed conservatives on this issue, even if they don't know it yet.

Steven, at the end of the day paying the salaries, staff and expenses of congressmen will not bankrupt the nation.

But the cost of unsustainable entitlement programs and aging populations will most assuredly seal the fate of most developed countries.

And yes, if you wanted all those goodies you could have run for office like anyone else.

Nick S,

Agreed, the programs ARE bankrupting us quicker. But I have a major problem with people who constantly tell everyone else they have to tighten their belts, while not doing the same. We really need to kick all of the idiots in D.C. out and start over.

"But I have a major problem with people who constantly tell everyone else they have to tighten their belts, while not doing the same."

Because in life if you make bad choices (or even if you have bad luck) you have to bear more of the costs yourself. You don't get to socialize all your losses and demand that everyone else "tighten their belts" to the same extent. Today's retirees decided to bet their futures on clearly flawed schemes, so they have to accept the costs. It is not up to everyone else to share their pain.

In any case, I don't see why politicians should have to bear the same costs of cutting spending elsewhere. If they control spending they are doing their job. Why should they be penalized for that? If I hire a consultant to identify potential savings in my business, I don't then say 'well, seeing as you are asking others to tighten their belts I will also have to cut your pay'.

By this reasoning, if the government decided to stop bailing out corporations they would have to cut their own pay as well. After all, it's just not fair to ask those poor CEO's to tighten their belts if legislators won't do the same.

Moreover, the question must be asked as to what extent today's retirees should be held responsible for the choices they made. Many people spent their lives voting for politicians that raided the SS surplus, ran perpetual deficits, and ignored all the evidence mounting of the future problems with SS and Medicare. If you make bad choices you have to live with the outcomes. That's life. Those who are now getting old are at least partly to blame for the problems they are going to face.