General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am almost 50 years old. i have been paying into Social Security since days after turning 14
Anybody and any party that tells me my Social Security is going to be cut so rich fuckwads don't have to pay a pittance more in taxes has lost my vote forever.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
boguspotus
(311 posts)I'll be 50 next year and I've paying in since I was 14 too - making $1.65 per hour + part of the tip jar, as a busboy.
I totally agree with you - no cuts to SS. If they do, my vote is gone.
doc03
(39,078 posts)employer pension I couldn't stay in my home with my SS income. Put whatever you can in
a Roth IRA or 401k.
KelleyD
(277 posts)And for the Repubs thinking they could play me against my younger brothers and sisters just because I wasn't going to get "HIT" insulted me and other older folks...screw that nonsense!
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)alone. They would've gone after the older ones, too.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)they did in the auto industry and a lot of other industries.
it's intended to divide opposition and decrease solidarity (also decrease support for social security and unions among younger folk).
once the old folks die, you have a minimum wage workforce with scanty benefits, essentially.
NO TWO-TIER.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If you give the school bully your lunch money the first week of school, he is NOT going to lay off of you for the rest of the year!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Lied about my age and started waitressing at 14 yrs old.
K&R
Rocky888
(297 posts)doc03
(39,078 posts)bet the Democrats make a deal with the Republicans for cuts. First of all chained COLA and probably an age increase on SS and Medicare.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Politicians of all descriptions should be terrified of going near it.
Qutzupalotl
(15,818 posts)
Island Blue
(6,287 posts)I'm 49 and have been paying since the day that I turned 16.
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)So many of us Generation Xers around eh?
TBF
(36,621 posts)but definitely in the restaurants - I was bussing tables at age 14/15. On/off through college though again I was doing nanny work and high-income folks like to pay cash for that. By 22 I was out of college and working full time - and paying at a high level until I stopped working at 40 to stay home with my kids awhile. I am 46 now and no idea if I will work again. With the job market the way it is I will probably be left to charitable activities or possibly work for non-profits if I'd try to go back. But I did pay in solid for about 20 years (and most at a pretty high income) so I'd hate to see that money just disappear.
Frankly, anytime they even make noise about the programs being cut we should be protesting in large crowds in Washington to let them know we don't appreciate it. The national debt is a problem, but the "defense" spending is an even bigger problem. We need to wind down the war machine and take care of business here at home.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)30+ yrs of SS payments. 
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)That change affected your retirement age, yes ?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I won't answer for them but for myself, no I wasn't paying attention. At 18 I was working a couple jobs and in my first semester of college. I remember voting for Anderson but that was about the extent of my political interest.
HOWEVER, it behooves all of us to pay attention for those following us. I don't begrudge teens who aren't following this at the moment but I do think those of us who are should be fighting for everyone.
maui902
(108 posts)I'm against any changes to social security that would alter the basic concept of a defined benefit (vs. a defined contribution or "voucher"
based program that all pay into and all benefit from. I also support the idea of raising the cap on income subject to the social security tax. But even if you had no cap, which I believe would not be doable politically in any event, I don't believe that change would raise enough additional revenue to ensure benefits in the future. So I'd be willing to discuss "changes" to the system that would help stabilize the program in the long run. While I'm generally against the proposal to gradually raise the age at which full benefits can be obtained, I would be willing to discuss ways to reduce the total cost of benefits in the long run (because I believe if we don't take small, relatively less painful measures now, we'll eventually need to take much more significant, and far more painful, measures later). For example, could we adjust the way we measure cost of living adjustments (at least slightly-understanding that small amounts of reductions over a very large base adds up to significant savings), and/or partially means test the benefits?
I just don't think we're going to resolve many of the issues we face by insisting on getting 100% of what we want. I'd rather work a deal now, while we have leverage, that preserves social security as close to Democratic ideals as possible, but is realistic about certain changes that will ensure the financial stability of the system in the long term, in exchange for significant concessions from the party that would destroy social security as we know it. While I understand the principle behind "no cuts to social security benefits," especially in response to Republican efforts to cut those benefits, I'm convinced we will need to do something to make the system financially viable in the long term (that includes but does not rely entirely on increasing taxes).
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)beneficiaries, we have no more leverage now than we did before the election -- less, actually.
If you mean democrats, we have no more now than we will after the new congress is installed.
The system is stable if the economy is. If the economy isn't stable, NOTHING is stable.
If the social security system can't ensure workers the basics in their old age, NO SYSTEM CAN.
NO DEALS.
maui902
(108 posts)That has any chance of getting enough votes to change the status quo (sequestration), which will, unless some bipartisan deal is reached in the future, automatically lead to higher taxes for everyone, and significant cuts to social programs (including, for instance, no extension of unemployment benefits for millions of unemployed Americans beginning January 1, 2013), and in my opinion, shared by many economists, an increase in joblessness and a much greater chance of a double dip recession? If the goal is to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, and your proposal relies solely on additional taxes and cutting defense spending (or relatively drastic cuts in non-defense spending based programs assuming zero cuts to entitlement programs), do you believe there is a realistic chance of obtaining enough Republican support to pass the legislation required to effect that proposal? Because, respectfully, I don't. And worse yet, if Democrats overplay this hand now, it is likely, in my view, to lead to losses in Democratic seats in the 2014 Congressional elections.
retread
(3,920 posts)maui902
(108 posts)How do you answer the question I raised in my previous post? I am not attacking the arguments posed in support of resisting any cuts to social security. I am simply trying to address the reality of the situation we're in. It is a fact that, absent some agreement that has some bipartisan support (requiring at a minimum 25 Republicans in the House), sequestration goes into effect on January 1, 2013 (immediate cuts to social programs, no extension of unemployment benefits, increase in taxes for everyone paying income taxes). And if that happens, an increased likelihood of an increase in the unemployment rate and a double dip recession. If that scenario occurs, the party seen to be in power (in my view, Democrats) will pay at the voting booth in 2014. Maybe I am wrong and sequestration is not so bad, but I honestly don't see getting ANY Republican support for a proposal that reduces the deficit by relying solely on increased taxes and cuts to defense spending.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)That's an excellent question.
The answer to retread's question IS nothing, and not just for the sake of argument.
Additionally, deficit reduction is a horrible and misguided undertaking. We are experiencing large deficits because of an economic downturn, not because of new, permanent spending programs or even tax cuts. Public investments are needed and deficit reduction (austerity) takes us in the wrong direction.
In your first response, you suggested that we must reduce benefits somehow - raising the retirement age, changing cost of living adjustments, and/or means testing. Why? Projected growth - even at current anemic levels - is 20 times higher than the tax increases necessary to maintain full funding for the current level of benefits over the 75 year planning period. Twenty times higher! That means we can maintain our commitments to this program and workers can still expect substantial wage growth and improvements in living standards.
maui902
(108 posts)The question I posed (and to which I still have not received an answer-either in this thread or on other related topics regarding the inaptly named "grand bargain" was "If you are going to insist that there be NO cuts in Social Security, what do you propose that will gain the required votes in a divided Congress to avoid the consequences of sequestration?" The only responsive answer I've received so far was (paraphrasing) to let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone in 2013 and then propose legislation to restore the Bush tax cuts for incomes of < $250,000 sometime during the year. But that approach still doesn't answer the basic question of what you would be willing to do to avoid sequestration and the consequences of sequestration, which I believe will (i) be very bad for lots of people, including the most vulnerable and (ii) potentially lead to Republicans gaining seats in the 2013 Congressional elections. Perhaps you disagree with what I believe will result from failing to reach any deal, and perhaps you disagree with my belief that it it unreasonable to assume that more than 20 Republicans and all Democrats will vote for a proposal that attempts to cut the deficit solely through additional taxes and cuts to defense spending. But the status quo is that if there is no bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit, bad things happen automatically, and the only way to avoid those bad things is to support some type of compromise that will get at least a few Republicans to agree.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)And I'm somewhat surprised you haven't found anyone on DU willing to play along. You probably mean well, but I think you're asking a bad question at the wrong time. The sequestration isn't until early January and the effects will be gradual so we have time. There is a massive misinformation campaign taking place right now* to convince the public that we need deficit reduction and cuts to entitlements. (You yourself seem to have fallen for some of it, as evidenced by your comments that in post #13 suggesting we consider finding ways to reduce benefits.) The people behind that effort more or less own the country so it won't be an easy fight, but rather than sitting around speculating about the best way to lose, I'd suggest we actually fight back with some loud truth-telling.
The current focus on the deficit is wrong.
Reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits would be wrong an unnecessary.
Editorial pages and websites and congressional inboxes and answering machines should be overflowing with messages to that effect.
(*Actually, it's been going on for a long time. Pete Peterson alone has spent around $500 million attempting to discredit Social Security.)
maui902
(108 posts)I really do, but we are talking past each other. Let's assume you are entirely correct; you make reasonable, passionate arguments not to reduce any benefits. Assuming you're unwilling to bend at all on this point, what do you see happening? Based on your latest response, I assume you believe having no deal by January 1, 2013 isn't so bad, and is preferable to agreeing to small, long term changes to benefits to social security and medicare recipients. I simple disagree, not because I've "fallen for it," but because based on my experience and what I read (and I believe I'm fairly well informed), I believe the following will occur if no deal is reached. First, taxes will increase-automatically, on everyone-come January 1, 2013: One: Relying on a divided Congress to reinstate income tax cuts for middle income earners sometime later in 2013 is a huge gamble, one I'll think you'll lose. Two: There will be cuts to non-defense related discretionary spending that, while effected over time, will have an immediate impact on many who are least equipped to handle the cuts. Three: While not part of sequestration, unemployment benefits for millions of unemployed Americans (those who are currently on the extended benefits-one of whom happens to be my brother) are scheduled to expire after December 31, 2012. Four, there will be significant cuts to defense spending, which will most certainly result in the loss of jobs. Five: Based on the combined impact of outcomes predicted in one through five, I believe (this is just a prediction based on my opinion, but I believe it's a reasonable one) that we are likely to experience a double dip recession, which will be harmful to the very people we as Democrats want to protect most. I realize my prediction could be wrong (I do not claim to be Nate Silver), but I am not willing to make that gamble if I can get a "grand bargain" along the lines of what President Obama proposed during the campaign (and, as I've stated in my prior posts, I'd be willing to address certain changes to entitlement programs, not because I think they have to be made but because I think that will be the price that we may need to pay to obtain a sufficient number of Republican votes to pass any program that avoids or corrects the impact of sequestration.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)all these dire consequences were SELF-IMPOSED by congress, so they could go to the public and scream "fiscal clifff, fiscall clifffff, we must cut social security!!!!!!"
it's farcical.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Chained COLA = slow murder for those relying mainly on SocSec. Kill old ladies for the crime of living too long. You are advocating killing the disabled who have been on SocSec for a long time. The needier you get, the less money you get. Fuck that straight to hell!
AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!! Benefits are already means-tested. The initial benefit favors lower income earners at the expense of higher income earners.
Stop listening to fucking RW garbage please!
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
JHB
(38,190 posts)No playing footsie with "reform". Any long-term shortfall can be fixed by 2 things:
1) remove the cap.
2) pay people more, so that more gets paid into SS.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The problem is you got a very large retiring generation (baby-boom) that is living longer, and the smaller youth generation are not finding adequate work that pays high wages. This means we got a lot more money going out in benefits than are coming in through tax revenue. The current estimate is SS will run out of funds by the early 2030s unless something changes.
Medicare has the same problem.
Look at it this way. In 1955, for every retiree in the United States, there were 16 workers in the labor force. Today that number has plummeted to 3 workers per retiree. And in a few decades it will drop to 2 to 1.
That, my friend....is the problem. Raising taxes isn't going to fix the problem because you got a larger retiree population trying to pull benefits out of a drying pool that has less income to fill it. It's not only about taxing the rich, it's about paying young people the salaries that they should be getting. When you got college grads coming out of college forced to wait tables because there are no other jobs that pay better, it hurts all of us.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)bank their retirement on 401'sand other privatized "personal wealth" options.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That hurts the young person coming into the labor force too.
Oh, and life expectancy is actually falling for many Americans.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/22/falling-life-expectancy-in-the-united-states/
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I would still be working now if I hadn't been laid off in 2010. I was not laid off because of my age. The company was losing money because of loss of advertisers. I was copy editor for 30 outdoors magazines. We had publications in most of the states. First, they eliminated some of the state magazines. Then they started laying off employees. I was given a nice severance package.
Fortunately, I had already been collecting SS. That along with my salary was a goodly sum. I had wanted to continue working so that I could get more money into my 401K. But I was forced into retirement as I knew no one would hire me at my age.
So I had to rely solely on SS. It is not easy, but I am doing it since I do not have high monthly costs. I own my car. I live in and own a mobile home on which I only pay a lot rent. I do not have any credit cards.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)matters if the economy produces enough goods and services, and what the workers' cut of that production is.
The problem is that while the economy has expanded over the last 30 years, with 1 worker's productivity now double that of his peer in 1980, workers take less of that value home in their paychecks.
If workers' pay had expanded in line with their productivity, following the WW2-1970s trend line, social security would be drowning in dollars, and we'd all be paying less.
eridani
(51,907 posts)More money is SUPPOSED to be going outright now, you idiots! The trust fund has a surplus that was deliberately created in the 80s to prepay boomer retirement. FICA tax rates were DOUBLED. (We'll have to build another surplus for Gen Y for the same reason.)
By your idiotic logic, we are all starving to death because the percent of farmers in the workforce is so much lower now than it was in 1955. Increases in productivity mean that it takes vastly less labor to support the entire population than it used to. Naturally, working people have not gotten the benefits of those productivity increases, but why not fix that instead of killing old people?
Skittles
(171,645 posts)fuck them all, the way they keep moving the goal posts and hinting at cuts
Sophiegirl
(2,338 posts)...then I want a refund!!!
tavernier
(14,438 posts)
billh58
(6,655 posts)which "party" told you that they were going to cut your SS?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)the Bill to increase the taxation of SS benefits to 85%.
During the recent debates, after he appointed the anti-SS members of the Cat-Food Commission, some heard President Obama say that he could agree to some extent with Rmoney with respect to Rmoney's position.
Did you not hear him say that during the debates? Or did you believe that he was only saying mere words for purposes of the debate?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)PETRUS
(3,678 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)benefits.
They did it by taxing the SS benefits. When the 3rd-wayers and Republicans reduce SS benefits by increasing taxes on such benefits even more, they will undoubtedly use the same tactic of not taxing some SS recipients whose income will be less than a threshold amount.
That's not the only trick that they will use. SS benefits are supposed to be adjusted for inflation. Somehow, however, the inflation adjustment is now always less than actual inflation.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,189 posts)Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)If people have to work longer before retiring their will be less opportunity for new workers to step into their positions.
The supposed job creators aren't generating very many new positions. Some have admitted it themselves, demand for their products is low and they have no intention of hiring new people but they aren't going to say no to the tax breaks either.
So where does that leave people coming into the job market for the first time?
It's only going to make the unemployment situation worse.
Actions have consequences which may or may not be desired or intended.
We really have had as Al Gore said a death of common sense in this country.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)absolutely convinced they'll never see SS, including me. Those of us fighting against cuts are doing it for the previous generation, not ours.
I expect the cap to raise by at least a bare minimum of five more years before I get there (I'm in my early 30s) and I don't expect to see 70. (Too much exposure to inhaled particles.)
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)
I hope you get to see SS and 70. We need more people like you in this world.lalalu
(1,663 posts)You are like most baby boomers who worked since they were 13 or 14 and paid into social security. It is why we gave the fund a huge surplus. There were so many of us working. More than was need to support the retirees at the time. So congress went in and stole some of the money without putting it back.
The retirement of boomers will be a temporary blip that can be eased by congress putting back the money they took and adding some additional funds. We also need to stop funding wars and cut money we send to foreign countries to shore up social security.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)reduce the wages and benefits of members of Congress.
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Social Security COLA benefits are being increased in January by about $21 in 2013, the first time in 3 years. BIG DEAL!!
donnasgirl
(656 posts)Enough already,are we going to sit or are we going to fight,we have to Email write call or what ever it takes.A great thing is starting in our country and the people have started it,politicians are starting to wake up( not all) but enough,in the next round of elections we have to take back our state houses from any politician who would advocate any cuts to the people who pay their salary.A good start would be Florida,wisconsin,and ohio to name a few.
Dems50State
(147 posts)have been waiting for a few years or days knowing it would be there to find they have to wait 10 more years?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)If they raise the retirement age, what they'll do is set an age where everyone above that age gets it when they're supposed to now, and everyone below the cutoff gets it at whatever crazy-ass number they've decided to set it at.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)...... but relaaaaaaaxxxxxx. 
It isn't going to happen. Turn off the TV and the radio. Don't listen to that crap. Stand up straight, puff your chest out, lift your chin. Now, SMILE. And know that everything is going to be alright. You are NOT going to loose your Social Security.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for benefits, built up the fund to the point where it has a huge surplus right now. And don't anyone bother giving me the Repub talking point that the 'money is all gone'. It is no more gone than the money China lent us, or Japan. They borrowed from the fund just as they borrowed from China and they will have to pay it back, no matter how much they don't want to.
A raise in benefits would help stimulate the economy and it would be fair to those who contributed to that fund rather than lending any more to the Gov for more wars and more Bush tax cuts.
We should be demanding increases in benefits and letting them know we are not falling for their lies and BS re SS which had zero, nothing, zilch to do with the deficit, other than to lend them money to cover their gambling debts and since those loans are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Gov, there is no doubt they will be repaid, as will China's loans. We and China are creditors of the US Government. Our fund, the SS fund, belongs to the people and it should be given to the people.
Enough of the lies and deceptions, it's way past time to end these lies which we all know are intended to scare people into agreeing to the privatization of the SS fund.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)and the GOP laughed at Gore for wanting to put a "lockbox" on it in 2000. Because they wanted to keep borrowing from it for the general fund.......... instead of raising taxes on the rich.
mountain grammy
(29,017 posts)been collecting ss 3 years, hubby started this year. been paying in for almost 50 years. Entitlement?? Not!! Earned benefits!
Mme. Defarge
(9,019 posts)I have been on Medicare since September. Entered FT workforce in 1969, paid for everyone who has ever been on Medicare. How dare anyone suggest I am a taker.
BTW, Medicare is wonderful. Fight for it!
Mme. Defarge
(9,019 posts)(Remember Columbo?)
It's not just SS and Medicare entollees who benefit. Imagine the burden on adult children without these programs.
mountain grammy
(29,017 posts)In 1964, we had a family emergency with my Grandmother who had dementia and how we could care for her. My mother was a widow struggling with two teenage daughters and the other siblings were just getting by. 1965, Medicare passed. Our family emergency was solved. Medicare for All!!!
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)alarimer
(17,146 posts)It does not. By law it cannot.
The trust fund has been borrowed to pay for other things, but it pays for itself. Still and for many years yet to come.
There is one very simple solution to make SS solvent forever: simply raise the cap on wages. Done, problem solved.
Why the fuck is no one even suggesting that? It's raising taxes on people who can afford.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Give me my fucking money basically sums up how I feel about it.
progressoid
(53,163 posts)paper route check was. Been paying into it ever since.
quispquake
(3,050 posts)Another 50 year old here, that has been INVESTING in my social security for years...Anyone touching that will be my enemy no matter which party they're with...
Horse with no Name
(34,239 posts)In my early years, I worked 2 full time jobs at a time.
After I had kids, I worked a full time and a part time job.
In my middle years, I worked 12-16 hour backbreaking shifts.
I am worn out and my Social Security needs to be left alone.
I fucking guarantee that these rich assholes haven't worked as hard their entire life and I have worked in one shift at the hospital every single day.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I saved hard for my retirement, but my industry crashed when I was 48. Most of my life savings was lost to supporting myself while I tried to find work that would support me. Much of it continues to be lost to the housing crash. And I ended up taking on student loan debt for one last shot at restarting my life.
I'm tired. The 2nd education, in allied health care, proved to be a waste. I'll never earn back the student loan money. The state university grossly overstated the job market, local hospital HR rep grossly overstated the starting salary, and now local hospitals are downsizing not growing.
The question for me is no longer a comfortable retirement versus poverty. More like poverty versus total destitution.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)is going to be OUT
I think the Republicans and Democrats better get with that message
cut Military whose generals are having parties plenty of billions there
and quit being in war constantly .....
No more loopholes for SuperPacs and Corporation s
adigal
(7,581 posts)I hope not. This is a deal breaker for me.