So correct me if I am wrong - but Social Security recipients have already
Taken more hits than anyone can imagine.
By allowing the age of recipients to be 67, rather than 65, the older person who needs to retire at the age of 65 will find they have eliminated fourteen percent of their annual payments FOR LIFE, by making that early retirement.
Then there is the little matter of the nation's economic collapse, which wiped out many Americans' retirement monies. There is the fact that many people thought that their pension monies were handled wisely, only to find out that the monies were tied into one or two major financial policies. Often, the financial managers threw the pension monies of a union or state pension plan into stocks involved with only one or two major industries. The reason for that was these managers had estimated that the high returns of the stock they chose was so valuable that considerations of any risk went right out the window.
Now, when the Economic Collapse hit, the value in people's homes was destroyed, and also their pension monies. They might have also taken a lost on any retirement monies they were controlling themselves.
Meanwhile, under the Paulson/Bernnanke/Geithner strategy of helping their friends on Wall Street, we find that some 15 to 16 trillions of dollars went to the Biggest players in the Financial World, some of whom were bankers and financial people not even in this country. I know that many of us here totally understand what is very wrong with this picture, don't we?
Experts tell us that some 4.7 trillions of dollars that these "loans" made by Paulson and Bernanke will never be repaid. So why can't someone in Congress create legislation that captures these monies from these Big Financial People?
Or why can't the President enact an Executive Order such that these monies are captured?
I personally think the Banking Cabal that apparently is ruling this country is equivalent in evil to any 'terrorists" that we spend money having our drones attack. If the nation's officials can see to it that the bank accounts of such rogue and terrorist states as Libya and Iran, and those of the Bin Laden family, are "re-captured" - then why can't we recapture these monies as well?
That 4.7 trillion is actually about .7 trillions dollars more than is being sought as cuts for the nation's budget and deficit situation over the next ten years.
I also am so sick of important matters being done in the wake of lame duck Congressional sessions. Few of the "Fiscal cliff" issues were discussed during the weeks leading up to the presidential, and congressional elections. All we got from Democratic leadership in the weeks leading up to this past election was the usual "the Democrats are for the middle class." Of course, anyone who realized the words "middle class" were very rarely mentioned, in any of the campaigns, got a strong clue as to what the leadership in both parties is about. And it sure is true that the leadership in both parties is far more concerned about people in the 200K and up class than those who are struggling.
If Congress can allow some weird person who is elected to Congress and serves less than five years a perpetual pension based on those few years, than Congress should damn well be able to allow Social security recipients to get the same things that our fathers and mothers got. And that means benefits that start at age 65, not 67 or older.
= new reply since forum marked as read
in February. I have been collecting my benefits since the age of 62. I can tell you that republicans have been insisting the benefits would not be there, at all, for as long as I can remember... certainly going back to when I was in college. 
A favorite republican tactic is to stir up generational conflict over SS & Medicare. Used to work much better than it does today. Their 18th century social agenda sends young voters to either the Dems or to Ron Paul Libertarians these days.
The GOP goes on these tears like clockwork...whenever Dems are in the ascendent. When they (the republicans) are in the driver's seat they calm down as neither wants to be the party that ended SS. It's not called the 'third rail' for nothing. So they'll make noises, but not really do anything. If the economy were stronger, the Dems would look to raise the Payroll tax and/or the ceiling, right now too many people are going to feel the pinch of the tax Payroll tax holiday expiring as it is for them to do anything. I wouldn't even worry about the chained CPI...nothing is ever written in stone.
QUOTE:
Full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age"
had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.
The 1983 Social Security Amendments included a provision for raising the full retirement age beginning with people born in 1938 or later. The Congress cited improvements in the health of older people and increases in average life expectancy as primary reasons for increasing the normal retirement age.
Plug in what year you were born, and the calculator will tell what your Social Security Benefits percentage will be on a sliding scale.
NOTE: I was not aware of the 1983 SS Amendments until prompted to look it up by this thread.
Additional information:
SUMMARY Of P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900) Social Security Amendments Of 1983-Signed On April 20, 1983
