I don't know where you got those numbers. We haven't seen those amounts in years. My RRB pension (administered parallel to SS) went up a net of 88 cents per month for 2017 after factoring the small raise in COLA benefits and then deducting our raise in premium for Medicare. Hooray!! $0.88 !! Now I can go back to planning a Bahamas vacation after all.

My COLA adjustment this year resulted in a whopping 88 cents a month net increase. That is great! We didn't get ANY increase last year... they suspended it for that term. The CPI they use to determine the change the last three (?) years no longer includes t***sportation fuel or food. Which two items on your budget have increased the most lately? Groceries and gas, right?

But they are managing the funds well. When a "refugee" comes here from some blighted sandbox, he is allowed to immediately bring his Mother and Father, Grandma and Grandpa and his kids. The parents/grandparents, being of eligible age are immediately able to claim Social Security benefits even though they have never paid a dime into the program. Meanwhile, my benefits are cut to pay for these oldsters from Bumflop, Syria to draw a full pension. Now that pisses me off.

What a coincidence. 27% of the Hillary v**ers now wish they had v**ed for Trump.

That's good... maybe they could hock it to pay for the wall.

Nice. It only took you 7 days here to learn how to b***h, find fault and indulge your inner control freak. Welcome.

Tawana Brawley

I haven't seen him rubbing his eye very often. But I have noticed that he ALWAYS, turns his head slightly, squints a bit and looks out of the corner of his eyes (like
Sam Elliot) every time he is lying. When confronted or caught he tips his head back, assumes that "mouth only, no eyes" smile, faces his accuser directly and laughs that phony laugh. He would never make his living as a poker player. He's easy. Hilary tries to use most of his tricks, but she just can't pull it off very often and people just know she is lying no matter what she is saying.

If your hard drive is dead, how did you access the "protected partition"?

;lkj

This is the last you'll hear of it. Here for a few minutes, then... gone.

I cannot understand why so many people still worship Allen West. Doesn't anyone remember his sneaky v**e on the 2013 (2012?) NDAA with the indefinite detention clauses in it? Then when called on his v**e he went on TV to lie about it as if his listeners are too stupid to understand. D********g. He is so obviously in bed with the rest of the RINO establishment, but is not honest enough to come out of the closet about it. I'll never forgive his two-faced back stabbing BS. I was delighted to hear that his constituents in Florida kicked his phoney ass out. They are close enough to him to see his crooked crap first hand. Thanks for dumping him, Florida.

Check http://www.infowars.com/allen-west-denies-indefinite-detention-in-ndaa-you-keep-talking-about-something-thats-not-there/ and many other similar articles from that time.

He has never promised to do ANY of this. I'm afraid that too many of us are just sure he will do what each of wishes he would do, but he has never mentioned that he will or will not do it. We need to pay closer attention to what he is NOT saying as we evaluate his candidacy. As I consider these omissions that I hadn't noticed, it gets scary. Besides, he is starting to piss backwards on the very things that we heard that got us excited about him in the first place.

You are absolutely right except that "he has been accepted as a valid president". Not by the people, like me, who are now questioning the eligibility of Ted Cruz. I have never considered Obama an eligible president. Now Cruz has the same stains on his history.

Again, I h**e this issue, because Ted would be my clear choice by a mile, but principle is principle. I don't consider Obama constitutionally qualified and Cruz has the same disqualifications. I can't v**e for Cruz while ignoring what I believe about Obama. That is called "cognitive dissonance". ;-)

This only defines "citizen", not "natural born citizen". According to "g.", a citizen candidate need only have one citizen parent at the time of his/her birth. That being so, why did they specifically employ the term "natural born citizen" when qualifying a President of the U. S.? All other positions use the term citizen but when talking about the office of president, they used the "natural born" to differentiate the qualifications. The obviously were requiring more than native or naturalized citizenship. So, "natural born citizen" must have been clearly understood at the time or they would not have used it and the did not reckon on our confusion years later. If we use the resources available to us now to decipher their meaning, we must come to the conclusion that they were expecting both parents to be U. S. citizens and to be born on U. S. soil. That is the only difference between Citizen and NBC. Clearly, they recognized the difference.

The "requirements" ARE in question. That is the point. Cruz needs this cleared up because many v**ers will pass on him (I will) with this cloud over his head. If he is ineligible, it is for the same reasons that Obama is ineligible.

Cruz cannot afford to lose the v**es from people who won't v**e for him on principle as long as his eligibility is in question.

I sincerely want to v**e for Ted, but will not because I believe he is not eligible. I have paid attention to constitutional scholars, Publius Huldah is among many others who insist that the law basics, such as Vattel, in use at the time of the creation of the U. S. Constitution clearly indicate that "parents" (plural) must be citizens at the time of the birth of the candidate. Further, the implication is that all types of citizenship except "natural born" are endowed by some legal action, but "natural born" is the one other type and exists without legal action. Vattel et al seem to support the definition that the candidate must have been born to TWO parents who were U. S. citizens at the time of his/her birth and he/she must have been born on U. S. soil.

We just disagree on what the term "natural born" means. You may be right in your assessment that one parent is sufficient to qualify the candidate. But, even if one parent is sufficient, Cruz was still born in Canada. I may be wrong, but as long as the question exists I cannot, as a person of principle, v**e for my real choice (Cruz) as long as the issue is in question. I hope he takes what ever action necessary to clear it up soon.

I have no hope that the SCOTUS will be any help in this. They probably won't even tackle the issue or will not focus any attention on the "parentS/parent)" problem. They will not take a chance on a ruling that might disqualify Cruz, which would collaterally disqualify Obama for the same reasons, for fear of public reaction. So they will do nothing.

Therefore, I don't see how our guy is going to solve the problem in time for the e******n. Do you?