White House calls for $250 stimulus checks for seniors

Kimberly DvorakKimberly Dvorak 8 Comments

Share

For the second year in a row the Social Security Administration will not give seniors a cost of living increase. Many seniors depend on the monthly retirement checks as their sole source of income and have had to make do with less during this sluggish economy.

According to Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, “The President will renew his call for a $250 Economic Recovery Payment to our seniors this year, as well as to veterans and people with disabilities.”

In a statement Gibbs referred to the $787 billion stimulus package success in providing benefits to those in need and said the president is calling for another $250 check to be mailed to seniors collecting their government retirement benefits.

“Under the Recovery Act, 56 million people benefited from the first Economic Recovery Payment—including about 50 million Social Security beneficiaries,” Gibbs said. “We’re grateful that Speaker Pelosi has indicated she will bring the new Economic Recovery Payment to a vote and we urge members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to support our seniors, veterans and others with disabilities who depend on these benefits.”

Keep reading

Share

Comments 8

  1. Call it what it is — a geezer bribe, promised two weeks before the election.

    We geezers vote. Apparently the Democrats have done polling that such votes can be purchased for somewhere in the $250 range.

  2. Hey, why not?
    Apparently the Republicans have no problem in buying elections.
    Same deal but on a bigger scale. Witness the massive influx of
    US Chamber of Commerce donations to Republican Tea Party candidates TV ads, some of which appear to be coming from foreign countries who do business with Chamber members here….like outsourcing to India.

  3. Thanks, Gwendolyn, for delivering the usual lame liberal response. As usual, a post devoid of facts — all insinuations. First rate Obama-supported smear posting, reflecting the desperation of the Left.

    Massive donations???? Really? How massive? The Huffington Post claims $886K from foreign corps spent nationwide (with no proof at all), which is less than our San Diego city labor unions are spending just to pass Prop D! The whole C of C campaign comes to $75 million nationwide — chump change compared to their union opponents.

    Indeed, our labor unions are spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS (actually in the billions) of dollars nationwide to restrict competition, advance socialism, and to elect fellow travelers.

    Because the C of C won’t detail its donors, then the insinuation is that foreign donors are a driving force behind these “massive donations.” Gwen, if you actually KNEW anything about Tea Party candidates, you’d know that often as not they (sadly) are protectionist when it comes to trade.

    Do you have any — ya know — credible EVIDENCE of this grand foreign conspiracy you envision?

    Here’s what the NY TIMES has to say about this (hardly a conservative bastion of thought):
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper

    ===

    — Ever since he raised the issue in his State of the Union speech nearly nine months ago — prompting head-shaking by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the Supreme Court — President Obama has been warning about the danger of foreign money creeping into elections as a result of the court’s landmark campaign finance ruling.

    In two campaign stops Thursday, Mr. Obama invoked what he portrayed as a specific new example, citing a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group as he teed off on a longtime adversary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over its political spending.

    “Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations,” Mr. Obama said. “So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.”

    But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

    In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance. —

    ===

    Turns out the accusation originated from the Soros-funded blog, Think Progress. Shouldn’t our ‘post-partisan’ President be above repeating baseless left wing smears, especially after his 2008 campaign was accused of something similar? Naahhhhh.

  4. Factcheck.org

    “Axelrod said “the core of the problem” is that the chamber won’t identify the sources of money it is using to fund its ads, except to say that it’s not from foreign sources. It’s true that the chamber won’t release donors — there’s no legal requirement for it to do so — and also won’t discuss the specific accounting methods it uses to keep foreign money separate.”

    At least we know where Democratic funds are coming from….or at least you seem to.

    Do you see the problem with this system of funding elections?

  5. Charlie Trie…. Tong Sun Park………Indonesia and the
    Lippo Group donations… Al Gore and the SF Temple
    fundraiser… Gore: “there’s no controlling legal authority.”

    Top name Democrats wrote the book on taking money
    from foreign sources !

    Even Bob Schiefer of CBS laughed in Axelrod’s face
    last week, asking, “Is this the Best you Can do?”

  6. Indeed, even CBS was incredulous. We’d like to suggest that if “Gwen” is going to be a constant shill for the left on Rostra, that maybe she could do so with an original thought. Either way, as long as she is spending her time trying to change the minds of those that won’t be influenced by such platitudes, at least she’s not doing anything for her “cause,” whatever that may be.

  7. So, Gwen, you favor banning corporate spending on elections and political issues? Let’s make a deal — a grand compromise.

    Let’s somehow pass a law banning such corporate spending, but also ban labor unions from such spending. In each case, no direct OR INDIRECT spending on political matters.

    That might not go down well with posturing Dems such as yourself. That’s because the Dems get MUCH more combined support from the unions AND from corporations than do GOP candidates and causes receive from these two groups.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.