Bush shows contempt for elderly

Of course, he treated veterans quite badly too...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-heat30.html Even before winter has officially set in, emergency funds to help low-income Chicago residents pay their heating bills have run out. Peoples Energy spokeswoman Elizabeth Castro said Friday a pool of federal funds available to needy natural gas customers in Chicago has already dried up because the federal government allocated much less money. The budget this winter is $1.8 million--down from $3.2 million last winter, she said. That leaves about 14,000 utility customers without heat in the city, with the full winter still ahead. "There is a lot less people able to get assistance,'' Castro said. Still, she said, the number of homes without heat is down from 18,000 last year at this time. The Rev. Jesse Jackson blamed the Bush administration for pushing cuts in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The program's total budget dropped from $1.7 billion to $1.4 billion. "[Fourteen] thousand households cut off in Chicago, that's huge,'' Jackson said Friday. "An emergency is upon us.'' Jackson urged Peoples Energy to restore heat to the customers--many of whom had their heat cut off before the cold blast started for nonpayment of bills. He had preliminary talks with gas company officials Friday and hopes to continue discussions next week. "You are talking about the most indigent people,'' he said. "You are talking about the very old who are living alone.'' Residents whose heat was shut off before Dec. 1 for not paying gas bills won't get their heat restored until they pay up. However, between Dec. 1 and March 1 the utility company, because of the cold weather, will not shut off heat for those who can't or won't pay bills. There are other assistance programs for those having trouble paying their gas bills, Castro said.

[Memnoch]

We up on our soapbox tonight are we, Dramnek?

[Davros]

Originally posted by Memnoch: We up on our soapbox tonight are we, Dramnek?

Allo allo - ave I missed sumptin guvna - is you tellin me that this ere Eisenschwarz fella is really that ferocious interlocutor Dramnek Ulk?

Thought that would be apparent to all Davros, gee and here you are usually so observant .

As for the thread, funny how it is Bush who is showing contempt for the elderly when it is all of the federal government that set the budget AND the democratic led senate had a huge say in the matter as well. Nothing like putting the blame where it belongs...oh and not to mention the so called cuts were actually still increases, the "cuts" being cuts in growth not in actual dollars. I also note the lack of any implication of state and local governments in this issue. Funny how one town is so dependant on the feds that they cannot survive with out it.

EDIT: Hope this reply is in an appropriately pleasing format

[khazadman]

Damn it Magic. You beat me to it. Daschle held up alot of the appropriations bills with the express purpose of attempting to shift the blame on Bush for their not getting passed. Sort of like these non-existant surpluses that the dems say are now gone. And as we can all see, none of this blame game s**t worked now did it?

[Ronn_Bman]

Well, if the Rev. Jesse Jackson blames the Bush Administration, it must be their fault.

[ 12-01-2002, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Attalus]

When's Jesse gonna blame "the Bush Administration" for the winter storm? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: Nothing like putting the blame where it belongs...oh and not to mention the so called cuts were actually still increases, the "cuts" being cuts in growth not in actual dollars. EDIT: Hope this reply is in an appropriately pleasing format

Well, I don;t know the specifics but if the fall in growth rate is less than the rate of inflation in the economy then this is in fact a cut in real terms. How you phrase it is up to you, but even if they are getting more actual money to spend than last year the pensioners could still have less wealth in real terms. Money is not a good rating of wealth over time unless it takes inflation into account. A simple point, but you'd be surprised how often it gets overlooked for that very reason.

And the font is fine by me. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Well, I don;t know the specifics but if the fall in growth rate is less than the rate of inflation in the economy then this is in fact a cut in real terms. How you phrase it is up to you, but even if they are getting more actual money to spend than last year the pensioners could still have less wealth in real terms. Money is not a good rating of wealth over time unless it takes inflation into account. A simple point, but you'd be surprised how often it gets overlooked for that very reason. And the font is fine by me. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [/QB]

You're right about the growth rate vs inflation, but this is the U.S.A. Federal goverment in my 41 years I've Never heard of a U.S. federal spending program growing slower then inflation. In the middle 90's (after the Repubs re-took the House of Reps) federal spending was Held to the inflation rate for the first time in history.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Well, I don;t know the specifics but if the fall in growth rate is less than the rate of inflation in the economy then this is in fact a cut in real terms. How you phrase it is up to you, but even if they are getting more actual money to spend than last year the pensioners could still have less wealth in real terms. Money is not a good rating of wealth over time unless it takes inflation into account. A simple point, but you'd be surprised how often it gets overlooked for that very reason. And the font is fine by me. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

You're right about the growth rate vs inflation, but this is the U.S.A. Federal goverment in my 41 years I've Never heard of a U.S. federal spending program growing slower then inflation. In the middle 90's (after the Repubs re-took the House of Reps) federal spending was Held to the inflation rate for the first time in history.[/QB][/QUOTE]Yes, but we aren't talking about spending plans as such - we are talking about pensions. Therefore the first is money spent in total and the second is money per person. It is only understandable that spening will rise in total even over inflation, because the population is constantly growing. Is the rise in money per person always higher than inflation? Thats a different issue once again.