No Full Social Security Benefits Until Age 70?

[tekisui]

Source: McClatchy

WASHINGTON — Young Americans might not get full Social Security retirement benefits until they reach age 70 if some trial balloons that prominent lawmakers of both parties are floating become law.

No one who's slated to receive benefits in the next decade or two is likely to be affected, but there's a gentle, growing and unusually bipartisan push to raise the retirement age for full Social Security benefits for people born in the 1960s and after.

The suggestions are being taken seriously after decades when they were politically impossible because officials — and, increasingly, their constituents — are confronting the inescapable challenge of the nation's enormous debt.

Social Security was created in 1935 with a retirement age of 65, but since then life expectancy at that age has increased by about six years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Today the full Social Security benefit retirement age is 66 for people born from 1943 to 1954. It then increases by two months for each birth year (66 years and two months for those born in 1955, 66 and four months for those born in 1956 and so forth), until those born in 1960 or later get full benefits at age 67.

Raising the age eventually to 70 could prove to be politically acceptable because it wouldn't have an immediate social impact, but it would demonstrate that politicians are resolute enough to mend one of the government's most popular social programs and to tackle the national debt.

If they did, they'd have substantial academic backing.

"For awhile, there's been a consensus among economists that raising the retirement age makes a lot of sense," said Richard Johnson, a senior fellow and the director of the Retirement Policy Program at the Urban Institute, a Washington research group.

Still, there are potential downsides.

"There are some incredible ramifications to raising the age," said Barbara Kennelly, the president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "Not everyone can work until they're 70."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/09/97271/no-full-social-security-benefits.html#ixzz0tDs0kXG0

________________________________

Notice Hoyer say we can't 'maintain our current levels of entitlement spending, defense spending and taxation without bankrupting our country'. We can see where the priorities lie.

[larkrake]

1. just raise the cap

[peacebird]

21. exactly - raise the cap so that all dollars earned have to pay SocSec

I have never understaood why if you make MORE you get to not pay on all the dollars you make. It seems the wealthy would be able to pay more a lot easier than the minimum wage earners.

[newthinking]

31. Call Steny Hoyer. Amazing that Democrats are doing this too!

[newthinking]

32. And make those damn assholes in congress tie their pensions to the same AGE

why should they be exempt and live high on the hog while they make their citizens suffer and wait? Why are they completely insulated from their own actions. Is that a Democracy?

[Lagomorph]

65. They exempt themselves from most of the laws they enact.

No such thing as insider trading if you are an elected Congressperson, for example. Ever wonder why they act like they are all on the same team, most of the time?

[Foo Fighter]

74. Yeah. Funny how that works.

One set of rules for the "ruling class" and another set for the rest of us.

IOW, politics as usual.

[ParkieDem]

33. The reason for the "cap" is pretty simple.

The wage base is capped because benefits are capped.

Social Security is a social insurance program for retirement, meaning that the level of benefits you receive is tied to your wages during your working life. For example, the person who earns $90,000 per year (and pays SS taxes on those $90,000) during his working life receives more in monthly benefits than the person earning $40,000 per year. This allows Social Security to be, at least purportedly, a "get back what you pay in" system.

The cap is currently $106,000. That means that at retirement, the person who earned $106,000 per year during his working life will get the same benefits as someone who earned $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000.

So, if yo simply raise or eliminate the earnings cap, you have to do two things. One is to increase the benefits for which higher earners are eligible. This defeats the purpose, because you're just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The other alternative is to keep benefit levels where they are. This sounds good, but by doing so, you turn Social Security into a "welfare" program rather than a "social insurance" program. Such a move would greatly threaten Social Security's political viability, which is probably its biggest asset: ask the average voter what they think about Social Security, and they'll say they love it. Ask them what they think about welfare, they'll say they hate it.

[newthinking]

37. every other civilized country has a pension or subsistence system for it's elderly

"Robbing Peter to Pay Paul"
(FYI: that is a Republican talking point)

We tied ours to this scheme for political expediency, but it may not be sustainable. So what are you going to do? Keep letting the poor or those who have fallen on hard times (or whatever) fail, end up homeless, or struggle, so that we can keep funds that are extra money for us?

I have a separate pension. I would like to see this too. But I don't want my leadership to leave elderly citizens in dire straights if it can't be fully paid back to me. That is simply selfish and immoral.

When will we stop seeing everything in terms of only what benefits ourselves? We all loose with that kind of thinking. It infects everything in our country and is screwing us all, even those who are well off are ultimately hurt by this pattern of "Democracy".

[newthinking]

53. So doesn't anyone else see taking care of our elderly as a moral issue?

Is this just about personal economics for "liberals" here?

[knownothing]

68. it depends

I'm 24. I'm paying dollars into SS and other programs that I will never be able to withdraw from. In order to keep it solvent, somebody's going to have to make sacrifices, and nobody wants to.

[newthinking]

85. Yes, and I have paid into it for 35 years. And I am not wealthy. But

some things are more important than "comfort money". IMO this is one of the primary things that is wrong in America. Everyone is all after their own welfare and seems little concerned about others in society. I see that even in Democrats.

No civilization can function that way.

[pokercat999]

96. Congratulations on reaching 24.

I've read, that advances in medical technology will increase the average lifespan of your generation to over age 120. You may be collecting SS longer than you think, so paying in more, either by paying higher rates or waiting longer for benefits, or a combination of both may be the only way to keep the program solvent. Less people, living longer.....a double wammy under the current system.

[Hydra]

140. It won't be there for us

The powers that be have made it clear we won't have anything to depend on IF we manage to live that long(doubtful).

[Hannah Bell]

156. it sure won't - if you buy into the crap they're feeding you & let them steal it.

& you already have, apparently.

[Hydra]

184. They have the apparatus to steal it

But SSI and the safety net were born out of bigger ideas than they have.

The question is, can we pull them off? Most people cringe when I tell them we should have a safety net not of charities, but of well educated, well paid people and tangible help. That's even before I start talking about housing and food provided for everyone.

If it takes pain for small ideas(capitalism) to be released in favor of big ones, so be it.

[Enthusiast]

166. The right wing has been

campaigning long and hard to get you to embrace that "We won't have anything to depend on." idea. Divide and conquer.

[Hydra]

185. And by right wing, do you mean the people supporting the catfood commision? n/t

[Enthusiast]

186. I guess I do.

[Hydra]

194. Good, because I'm worried about how many people in our Gov't support

The absurd assertions of the catfood commission.

And here's why I'm being a downer about it:

There's a reason that education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the big, wealthy, business interests that control all things and make the big decisions.

Forget the politicians, they’re irrelevant.

Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear.

They’ve got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

They don’t want that, you know what they want?

They want obedient workers, obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they’re coming for your social security money.

They want your fucking retirement money; they want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this fucking place. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it! You and I are not in the Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you in the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to believe, what to think and what to buy.

George Carlin

Tell me that is not exactly what we have playing out right now.

[Enthusiast]

201. Yeah, Carlin was not 'just'

a comedian. He had amazing insight into the nature of our national cluster fuck. With fewer like him around it is easier for the owners of this country to achieve their objectives.

Now we even see right wing ideology spewed on the DU. They have brought theirs lies right here. What an UGLY turn of events.

[Hannah Bell]

157. when i was young, i read we'd have flying cars by now.

[pattmarty]

104. Well just consider that all the fucking people that drop dead before.......

........they reach 65 or 70 or whatever age, are subsidizing YOUR SS retirement. Oh, and fucking vote and call your reps to tell them NOT to cut SS. The only sacrifices that will be made is by the working class folks that are getting fucked more and more.

[JDPriestly]

129. knownothing. You will draw from Social Security.

Your children will pay your Social Security benefits. It is a lie that people who are young today will never collect -- simply a lie.

How else do you think you will live and have income in your senior years?

I am now 67. My husband and I saved money all our lives. On two occasions, we had serious health problems in our family and had to use up all of our savings to pay to live during the hard times. We started over -- saving as we worked. We saved and saved and do not even begin to have enough money to live on without Social Security.

At this time, we earn no interest on our savings or virtually no interest. On one account which is not, compared to what we earned in our lives (which was not that much), not all that small, we earned 75 cents in the first half of this year. That is a great part of the total cash flow we earned from the savings that we scrimped and did without to put aside.

You need Social Security. We all do.

I am very healthy for my age -- except for high blood pressure and arthritis. I assure you that many of the seniors who look so healthy actually have all kinds of problems -- with balance, slipped disks, hip replacements, knee replacements, heart, liver, diabetes.

Employers lose very little when they fire a person over 60. The damages in terms of lost wages are not much. So, laws against age discrimination are not very effectively and frequently ignored. Once you sue an employer, you may have great difficulty getting another job.

You, knownothing, need to fight for the Social Security system. You will need it some day. Don't fall for the right-wing rhetoric about how it won't be there for you. It will be there if you work to insure it is there.

[Hannah Bell]

158. +100.

[Enthusiast]

167. Thank you, JDPriestly

for your excellent post. I couldn't agree more. This is especially good:

"You, knownothing, need to fight for the Social Security system. You will need it some day. Don't fall for the right-wing rhetoric about how it won't be there for you. It will be there if you work to insure it is there."

[Enthusiast]

164. How many of us can

work until we're 70? This is simply not a realistic solution. Especially while we are wasting money on a military industrial complex, as we are, and pouring money down an Afghanistan/Iraq rat hole.

[inna]

73. Amazing, isn't it.

:crazy:


How people bought into this Randist "I got mine" crap (and fail to see how deeply repugnant it really is) is beyond me.

[newthinking]

87. Not only repugnant.. Primitive

I would even classify it as a kind of societal "mental illness". If that is the way that a majority view life in the US we truly have the odds against us. I hope it is just DU?

[Nay]

112. Repugnant indeed--and it's not just here on DU. I hear this crap at work

every day from the RW assholes that infest the place. They're all "Christians" too, which I can hardly wrap my mind around. Mr Nay and I are moving back to Canada the day we retire. This place is insane.

[Enthusiast]

168. It isn't beyond me.

I watched it happen right before my eyes.

It started with getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Then they consolidated radio, TV and print media. Then their soft-fascism message was broadcast to the unknowing until they bought into the social Darwinism ideology. It's also an age thing. You will find a certain age demographic that promotes the Randian ideology as they have lived almost their entire life bombarded with this propaganda.

[Enthusiast]

165. It's a moral issue.

But morals don't count for much any longer. Look how Wall Street was rewarded for their theft as one example.

[bbinacan]

44. + 1

Very sound argument.

[Statistical]

54. It doesn't defeat the purpose.

SS is on a sliding scale. A person gets a replacement income of 90% of wages up to $768 a month, then 40% of wages above that till $4856 a month, then only 15% of wages up to the cap.

Raising the cap means more of rich persons wages are taxed but their retirement check only increases by $0.15 on the dollar. So if they pay an extra $1000 a month in SS taxes they only get back an extra $150 in benefits.

Raising the cpa will help however it won't completely close the gap so it is only part of the solution.

[JDPriestly]

130. The average Social Security benefit now is between $1,000 and

$1,200 per month. It is not much money.

When I first got my Social Security card back in 1957, I worked for less than $1.00 per hour. I might be wrong, but I think my pay for my summer job might have been 50 cents per hour. I was just a young kid in high school. Back then, we worked summers -- in day care centers, restaurants, drug stores, on farms, etc. Nowadays, immigrants do a lot of the work we did.

My generation has worked a long, long time. We are tired. We have a lot of physical problems. Without Social Security, most of us would simply starve. That will not change for future generations -- social Security or starvation.

Before Social Security, a larger portion of the population lived on farms and were able to feed themselves from their own land. Few of us can do that nowadays. That is why we have to have Social Security. There really is no alternative.

[Enthusiast]

169. "There really is no alternative."

There really isn't unless we don't care about the crushing poverty and homelessness that would result from dismantling social security. This is the real "pull the plug on Grandma".

[JDPriestly]

199. Well said. That is the real "pull the plug on Grandma."

[slipslidingaway]

77. +2 and welcome to DU :) n/t

[MajorChode]

97. Social Security already is a welfare program

If you read post #54, you'll see that FICA is set so that the more you pay, the less you get back as a function of what you pay. No insurance program works that way (except for Medicare which is also welfare). The Medicare portion of FICA is already not capped by income so there's already precedent for this. Although Medicare benefits aren't capped per se, there's no reason why a rich person would derive more benefit from Medicare than a poor or middle class person. The reason why SS and Medicare is called "insurance" has more to do with marketing, and the marketing is aimed at the wealthy who abhor anything called welfare. So what you are really talking about is preserving the illusion that SS is "insurance" when it isn't and never has been.

[pattmarty]

105. Boy, you should have been on the "commission". Get rid of SS and......

......Medicare and great, deficit problem solved. Then we will have gotten rid of ALL that pesky "welfare" as you put it. Every think of running for Congress as a Dem?

[MajorChode]

139. Hyperbole much?

Since when did I call welfare, "pesky"? I choose not to buy into the Limbaugh notion that social welfare is a bad thing, YMMV.

See post #81 for further reading.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8717980&mesg_id=8719981

[Enthusiast]

170. Yeah, Rush Limbaugh says

it's a welfare program. Good for you, MajorChode! We DUers always like to hear what Limbaugh says.

[MajorChode]

207. I've never heard him say that

Either you must be a big fan or you're simply talking out your ass. Either way you've bought into his flawed reasoning that social welfare programs are a bad thing and that explaining the reality of social security is just too too much of an inconvenient truth for you to stand. Congratulations.

[pattmarty]

103. That's bullshit and you know it.

[sulphurdunn]

131. No, you don't have to increase benefits

if you legislatively raise or eliminating the earnings cap any more than you would have to increase benefits if you raised the retirement age to 70 because the recipients would otherwise collect less in total benefits over the remainder of their lives.

[Mojorabbit]

143. Well it looks like the political viability

is being threatened now. Raise the cap and put a means test on it? I hate having it called an entitlement. People pay into it their entire working life. It isn't free. And I am thoroughly pissed off that the bankers got plenty of free cash we are paying for with our taxes but damn if the govt. can stand to do anything for the little guy.

[Chan790]

192. You went off the rails at the end.

It's a false equivalency based on a miscognitization of motives.

The collective "average voter" you cite does not love Soc. Sec. because it's not a form of welfare...they would not give a damn if it was...they like the idea of it because they think it seems fair that after a lifetime of work, moms and pops get a bit of respite and loathe the idea of grandma having to go get a job and work until the day she dies.

The "average voter" hates welfare because it's portrayed as money being given to people who don't deserve it for not doing anything...note that this is the same portrayal Republicans are trying to give now of people collecting unemployment as justification of their opposition of a further benefits extension.

We can easily eliminate the cap on Soc. Sec. taxes while keeping the benefits caps with no public outcry whatsoever. In fact, it would be less controversial for 98% of Americans than any other proposal being floated.

[grasswire]

2. why solve this on the backs of the poor elderly??

Just means test Medicare and Social Security. Just do it.

[newthinking]

24. Yes, the last 9 years are not healthy for many. They can't always work

It sounds nice in theory that people are living longer and can work longer, but people still get a host of ailments after 60 and upping the age would cause tremendous suffering for a large number of seniors. Might as well go back to having poor houses for our elderly.

[juajen]

49. Not to mention the fact that age 55 is likely the cut off even now for

being gainfully employed. Of course we could make the elderly slaves that fall asleep while waiting to greet at WalMart. Oh, excuse me, we already have. There are no decent jobs for the elderly in this country. The elderly get no respect as it is, what do you think will happen when they stay in the labor force until age 70?

[Enthusiast]

172. Some of us have a host of

ailments before we're 60.

[WinkyDink]

93. You answered your own question: "POOR" = NO BRIBES. "ELDERLY" = GONE SOON.

[JDPriestly]

132. Social Security is already means tested in that if you earn

more than a certain amount, you pay taxes on the money you earn and only get a portion of the Social Security to which you would otherwise be entitled. Social Security should not be means tested. The benefits are very, very small to begin with -- on average between maybe $1,000 and $1,200 per month. Wealthier people get maybe $500 per month -- depending on the income they have to supplement their Social Security. Social Security is means tested. Medicare is not means tested, but contrary to popular belief, unless you are very poor, you pay co-payments and other costs for your Medicare treatment. So it isn't free unless you are low-income.

Low-income means that you get less than the average Social Security recipient. Low-income is really, really low, at least compared to the living costs in cities like Los Angeles, New York or San Francisco -- actually, the living costs most places.

[elehhhhna]

137. By "earn" you mean wages --

dividend and capital gains do not affect your ss income. Why? Because we worship capital, and have no respect for income produced by frikkin WORK.

Grandma gets hit for working at Walmart, but Barbara Bush collects the full amount, on top of her ill-gotten investment income.

USA! USA!

[Enthusiast]

171. Just cut the Military down

to a reasonable level, about 1/8 of what it is now.

[notadmblnd]

3. raising the cap on earnings makes sense too

I won't hold my breath waiting to see if they do it though.

[KeepItReal]

4. Just like John Boehner (R) wanted

(eom)

[B Calm]

19. Yep! This is 100% REPUBLICAN IDEA! Solution: KICK REPUBLICANS OUT!

[Octafish]

126. That's why we need a Democratic President, House, and Senate.

They'll protect the middle class and poor. Right.

[fascisthunter]

5. I bet they are hoping people will die before 70...

instead of coddling the wealthy and big business this is how they repay us all for paying into this system. Any more questions on how little this government feels about us all? this is NOT a country with much pride nor could it be the way citizens are treated.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. My parents only made it to 58 & 63. I am willing to bet you are onto something there.

[fascisthunter]

11. what is the average age of mortality in this country?

Life expectancy: 77.9 years

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

now what do you suppose the average age of mortality is for those who are poor? I'm quite sure it's lower than 77.9 years of age.

[newthinking]

25. "77.9". Yes, but this assumes that people can work until the die, which is a LIE

the last years are not robust years for the majority. So many many will suffer with a change like this because they either cannot physically work or they are unhirable.

We should call what this action is, even changing the age is societal callousness.

[Nay]

115. Hell, they don't want to hire you after you're 50 as it is right now. Who

the heck is going to hire us when we're 67 and got laid off? NOBODY.

[JDPriestly]

134. That is my experience. No matter how competent or well educated

or hardworking you are, you probably will not be hired after the age of 63. And maybe for good reason. Once you are over 63, it is hard to keep the pace that most employers demand at this time -- long, long hours, weekends, short breaks. Some jobs don't offer paid vacations at all, and many that do frown on your actually taking the vacation time. That is the case in the field in which I work. I read about the fact that average hours worked per week are now lower than they were a few years ago. But in the field in which I worked, that is not the case.

[fascisthunter]

122. agreed

[stray cat]

10. My impression is that SS originally wasn't intended for 20 years

lifespans were shorter - however they then need to loosen up the requirements for disability

[newthinking]

26. The median is somewhere around 12 years. How many of those years are healthy

I don't know how old you are, but you will find out that it is a minority that are healthy enough to work at those latter ages. And even if they are, it is very difficult to keep work at those ages.

I know you do not intend it, but advocating this increase is a callous act. I know you are not a callous person from your posts here. I hope you will reconsider that position.

[peacebird]

92. my dad was youngest of 10, all died between 63 and 65. My grandparents all died by 65.

My mom (thank goodness!) is still going strong (clear mind and able to live on her own, just gets tired easier) at 83.
But overall - my family dies before they can get social security.

[B Calm]

152. My father died at age 92, my grandfather died at age 87.

[SoCalDem]

6. They won't need it anyway

They will all be wondrously RICH, I tells Ya rich..from their 401-ks:rofl:

[Art_from_Ark]

133. That's what they were saying way back when

401-ks were the solution to retirement worries, or something like that.

These days, though, it seems like you'll get stung no matter how you try to prepare for retirement.

[JDPriestly]

136. 401(K)s and private savings funds are the biggest scam ever.

They are what led to the current recession. Wall Street got a hold of all that private retirement money and just partied -- just partied at the expense of today's retirees. Wait until the Baby Boomers see what Wall Street has done with their retirement funds. Most of them aren't paying attention. I'm just a trifle older than the average Boomer. It's a big disappointment, a scam.

[Statistical]

147. I don't feel scammed by my 401K.

If you look at it from the peak it is down however that is a false metric.

If you look at just what I put into it (excluding the 5% match by employer) I am up well over 347%. Granted that is over 15 years but still not bad.

Most people who say "I love $xx thousands in my 401K" are looking from the peak till now. Not looking at the fact that their account is worth much more than the amount they put it.

[B Calm]

153. You should. It's a mechanism to milk the money from the working class

and to funnel our money internationally. Industry would prefer not to make any further investments into the US, thus capital flight is inevitable and all thanks to our 401K's.

[Statistical]

187. You are aware a 401K is just a "bucket".

You could put 100% of your 401K into treasury bonds.

[B Calm]

216. Yea, I know. But almost everybody that's in a 401K diversify their money

into different funds.

[JDPriestly]

198. You are probably still working and are judging by the

increase during the 1990s. Since then, the stock market has pretty much stagnated. Right now, you probably are not getting any income from your 401(K) investments at all.

I am retired right now. That is why I am noticing the fact that there is no cash flow into my accounts. No cash flow now when we are supposed to be relying on those funds for our living.

If there is no cash flow into your 401(K), then to the extent that you have to live on it, you will eventually spend all the capital you put in and be a burden to your children and the state. That is why we have to keep Social Security in addition to 401(K)s. Also, those of us who managed to put even a little money into a 401(K) probably earned at least average salaries if not above-average salaries. We were lucky. What about those who really don't earn enough to put into 401(K)s? Or do you not care about them? I do.

[Statistical]

203. Never said we shouldn't keep SS. We should, we should raise the cap, and we should strengthen it.

Still given I will never have a pension unless I want my retirement years to be based solely on SS income I think 401K aren't that bad of a deal. I still got another 20+ working years left and it is my goal to put another 200K or so into my 401K (plus another 200K from my employer match plus any market gains).

[JDPriestly]

213. 401(K)s will not fund your retirement.

You need both Social Security at the level it is today and a hefty 401(K).

A friend of mine is married to a woman with Alzheimers. It could happen to you. Even if you don't marry, a loved one, a parent, a child, a sister, brother, someone you love could become ill -- with an illness that costs a lot of time and money to treat. Your ability to make your 401(k) stretch could be very limited.

Further, remember that at some point over the next 20 years, we will probably have inflation. Suddenly, all that money you are putting away in your 401(K) looks pretty worthless.

When I first started working and got my Social Security card back in 1957, the minimum wage was $1.00 per hour. I was 14. I don't think they had to pay me that much, and I don't think they did. I might be wrong about that. Still, today, in many places, a soft drink costs more than $1.00. Yet, what I would have saved had I had a 401(K) was based on the wages I could earn at that time. That is why 401(K)s will never replace Social Security, and Social Security cannot be based on the actual dollar amounts that the recipient paid into it.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

[Statistical]

214. I think you are intentionally ignoring what I am say.

I am 100% in support of SS. I am 100% in support of raising the cap. I am 100% support in fighting to do whatever is needed so that SS remains viable.

That being said SS doesn't provide the level of retirement I would like. $100-$1500 in inflation adjusted dollars doesn't go that far even with a mortgage paid off. Thus something else is needed. In perfect world it would be a pension but even if pensions were available in my field nobody says 20-30 years at one employer. That means the supplement will need to be made up of IRA/401K. Personally I feel the best vehicle is the Roth IRA however the 100% match provided by most employers is simply free money. It is foolish to pass it up.

[JDPriestly]

217. Agreed, but you aren't hearing what I am saying.

While everyone should try to save in some form or another (depending on what is available to them -- for some IRAs are the only alternative -- some can have Roth IRAs, some can have 401(K)s, and there are other forms), right now, the kinds of investments that are recommended for those of us who are actually retired produce NO CASH FLOW in any form.

So, it's good to have savings, but you can't count on living from the income from your savings or supplementing Social Security from income on your savings. The banks are paying next to nothing (although they charge huge interest rates from borrowers) on your savings.

One of my 401(K) accounts wants me to pay $10.00 per month to get a statement. My interest on that account for the first six months of this year was 75 cents. Yes, 75 cents.

I can just picture slightly confused elderly people in their 80s and 90s agreeing to pay the fund $10.00 per month because they don't have internet access. The whole thing is a scam.

The 401(K)s, "investments" in general are a way for the banks and brokers to grab the money of working people. Instead of real assets like land, gardens where we can produce food, or small shops that we own and hand down to our children, we got paper money for our work -- and that paper money, no matter how much you save it is only worth what the market says it is worth. You can't eat it. You can't burn it for fuel. It is just paper.

Buy yourself a fertile piece of land somewhere while you are still young. Prepare to farm it in your later middle age. I'm quite serious. That is the hope for your future, not paper money in retirement accounts. And, yes, paying off your house will make your retirement money go a lot further. But, having lived as long as I have, I must warn you, you will need to be very healthy and very lucky if you are to ever be able to pay off your house and buy a little land to live on in your senior years.

[lovuian]

7. the Congress needs to be prosecuted as thieves

for stealing the Social security of americans from them

why raise it to 70 why not 100

who is kidding who

[unapatriciated]

42. Congress prefers the word Borrowed.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/was-the-social-security-money-“borrowed”-or-“stolen”/


I think your term is more honest, but it is easier to blame the shortfall of funds on us for living toooooo long.

[freebrew]

127. Wrong!

The shortfall is due to congress taking the money and not investing it as it should have been. The $trillions they took would have earned more than enough to take care of any problem we've seen. Then as now, it was a Repug idea, but the Dems flocked on board.

Maybe that 2nd amendment solution the R's talk about may come in handy?

[unapatriciated]

142. Where did I say it was a Dem's idea?

I agree that it was stolen and co-mingled with the general fund to pay for other programs. The only investing allowed is Government Bonds.
Bush I and II stole quit a bit.

[glitch]

145. They can use "borrowed" if they pay it back. Until then, it's STOLEN.

And that goes for any "reform" that codifies the theft as well.

[unapatriciated]

146. In regards to the word borrowed I guess I should have used this....

:sarcasm:
I you had read my link or the rest of my post it wouldn't be needed.

[glitch]

148. Wasn't disagreeing, just adding to your point. Like a nod IRL.

Happens in conversation from time to time.

[unapatriciated]

149. sorry, damn I need to take a reading comprehension course.

[glitch]

155. It's not that easy to converse when you can't see facial expressions or hear intonations.

Unfortunately I write like I talk and that isn't always sufficient without the body language. :hi:

[Statistical]

188. They have begun to repay it. This year SS generates less revenue than it had in expenses.

It won't be paid back in a lump sum that would be stupid.

It will simply be paid back slowly to make up the difference between SS revenue & SS expenses.

[glitch]

193. The far right doesn't want to pay it back and further, to dismantle it. To ignore their efforts

is to do a disservice to your point.

[Enthusiast]

173. For many, it might as well be 100.

How many of us can work until 70? Not many.

[Donnachaidh]

8. people better be planning on marching on Washington about this

What's the bottom line 'last straw'? If they get to shred this after the standoff on unemployment? Young people better realize that if they are allowed to get away with raising it now -- what is going to stop them from raising it AGAIN down the line? Do you really want to pay those taxes all those years to have it yanked out from under you by deficit hawks who will hand off your retirement funds to military contractors?

This is OBSCENE.

[INdemo]

121. Special interests..thats all we hear .

"I am not owned by special interest groups" The hell they aren't.
We need term limits and we need to get these corporatists out of Washington now..
Maybe it is the fact that after Bush sold the sole of our Democracy to these corporate kings these idiots in Washington think the only way for their political career to survive is to sell their soles to the corporate power group and it is obvious that has happen.
The working class in America does not have any representation* in Washington..We need a real progressive party and yes we need term limits...

*maybe a few Like Grayson but not many left...that are Left

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Vote GOP. Work until you die.

That was easy.

[newthinking]

27. No, be in poverty fighting for a roof until you die. Most elderly will struggle with health and

employment. We are not using our compassion cap on this. It sounds good that people live (a little) longer. But many are not in good health and it will be a struggle to stay employed due to health and bias.

[WinkyDink]

95. Do not forget about the NEW HEALTH-CARE AND MEDICARE RESTRICTIONS & COSTS COMING.

[Catherina]

40. This is happening under a Dem President with a Dem majority.

That's some legacy our party is working on.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

45. Exactly. nt

[Foo Fighter]

75. That fact seems to be conveniently ignored.

It's easier to just blame it on the Repugs, doncha know?

[Catherina]

79. Except when the New Democrats are openly supporting them on this site

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8697828


Had I known, on inauguration day, that we'd be where we are today, I'd have shot the tv. It's been a terrible year and a half. Just terrible.


Up is down and down is up right now.

[Foo Fighter]

208. Oh, no doubt.

Heh,lucky for me, I was never had an doubts regarding Obama's loyatlties. Thus, I never voted for him.

I can only imagine what a huge slap in the face it was for those that voted for Obama when the reality of what they had voted for hit the fan.

You have my sympathy.

[slipslidingaway]

78. Yes, imagine that :( n/t

[Dr.Phool]

99. You no longer have to vote GOP for that.

Any ol' Blue Dog or DLCer will do just as well.

At least we'll die with a majority.

[doc03]

Deleted duplicate post

[doc03]

13. Many people may be able to work to age 70 if they are lucky

enough to have good heath and a sedentary job. What about people that work a job that evolves hard work and exposure to carcinogens all their life? I retired this year at 62 and I don't think I could make it to my full retirement age of 66 let alone 70. I agree lift the cap. Boner wants to raise the retirement age to 70 yet he can retire at 50 what a f----g ass.

[newthinking]

28. Thank you! People do not understand the reality of aging

[quiller4]

144. One answer would be to work in a union trade and draw your

union pension for years before filing for social security. That is the way mill workers pensions are designed so that workers retire and draw a higher pension rate in the early years of retirement and the pension payment declines after workers become eligible for Social Security. That is also what IBEW and Teamsters intend but fewer and fewer are represented and have that option have that option.

Both my spouse and I had the option to retire early and draw our pensions immediately. My husband began drawing his Teamster pension at 57 and filed for early Social Security at 63. His Teamster penion payment dropped by $300/month when he began receiving Social Security benefits. I retired at 55. My TIAA/CREF pension will be exhausted at the same time I become eligible for Social Security at 66.

If we make it easier to claim Social Security Disability at any age if one becomes unable to work, then fewer would be harmed by the likely raising of the retirement age.

[Statistical]

189. Well raising the full retirement may not affect early retirement.

Full retirement was 65, then 66, then 67.

Early retirement was anytime after 62 and still is.

[blueworld]

14. Why don't they change the eligibility income level instead of eligibility age?

I know a wonderful old gent who, as of 5 years ago, still held a seat on the NYSE (do you know how much that costs?) & a rent-controlled apartment on Park Ave. He had been married to a famous TV journalist. They were (and he still was) filthy rich. He collected a Soc. Security check every month.

Do old folks with retirement incomes over $250K per year need freakin' SS? Congress critters? This isn't rocket science! Whatever the life expectancy is, MANY people don't make it that far! Particularly the poor & working stiffs!

Those who are already socially secure don't need to dip into a program designed to help the rest of us from starving in our old age!

[doc03]

17. Wait a f----g minute that is means testing, that is something

else Boner wants. I shouldn't get SS if I save money for my retirement and have a nice 401K nest egg when I retire? If someone paid into SS I don't give a damn if he makes a billion dollars a year he is entitled to SS. SS is not a welfare program "we pay into it"! It is bad enough already since Raygun they tax the SS.

[newthinking]

29. That is one thing we may have to do.

Compassion has to cut all directions. I think they should not have to do this, but really, we all should protect the most vulnerable, even if it involves means testing.

I will have a (not large) pension. But of it means I have to let go of some of my SS so other of my peers will have a roof over their head I would be selfish to fight for my extra spending money.

[Hannah Bell]

43. supplemental security income is a welfare-type program for the most vulnerable.

social security is an old-age insurance program funded by workers, not welfare.

[newthinking]

50. But it is also the only social program we have to take care of the poor elderly

So it is both. Thinking of it only as a savings account shortchanges and sidelines the other need that it takes care of.

[Hannah Bell]

90. no, SSI, housing subsidies & food stamps take care of poor elderly, both those who are eligible

for social security & those who aren't.

Social Security isn't & shouldn't be turned into a welfare program.

[newthinking]

154. I don't know what you are talking about. SSI does *not* give much help

I know that from family members.

I am really surprised at your position on this HB. You can make any claims you want, but there are plenty of studies that show that more than 50% of seniors would be in dire straights without Social Security. How can you, as a socialist, take a position on SS that essentially is more and skewing more and more away from the poorest and toward the richest?

[Hannah Bell]

159. ssi + housing subsidy + food stamps + medicaid does, however.

& i have no idea what you're talking about in the rest of your post.

we have programs for indigent elderly who did not work enough to qualify for social security, contrary to your assertion that there are no such programs.

[doc03]

46. I paid into SS for 46 years, I saved money on my own

in a 401k to supplement my SS so I could have a comfortable retirement. Now you think one of the other people I worked with that blew his money on a new car every couple years or a fancy house or maybe just gambled or drank up his check up should get more SS than me, I don't think so. Now you are talking pure socialism, take frokm those who worked for their SS and give it to someone else that didn't. We all pay into SS and whatever your contributions entitle you to you should get no more no less. The government already taxes up to 85% of our SS income if you happen to have another pension plan or savings income. Now you want to take it all away.

[newthinking]

51. Republican talking points - Most bankruptcies are not irresponsibilities

About 60 percent of people who are wiped out is because of health care issues. Add to that people who are responsible but get screwed by a bad investment decision or other mistake or many other things in life that can happen with that money.

You should get something back from it, as should I (I also have my own resources), but if it is unsound any compassionate society should first focus on those who would be left destitute.

That is simply the moral decision to make. We have a real issue in this society that will drag us down, the idea that we take care of our society, even people who make mistakes or who are poor. Other societies do that. How is it we accept the IMMORAL premise that "if I don't get something nobody gets something, including those who need help". That is a cancer on our society.

[doc03]

71. You are arguing something that has nothing to do with SS

you want to help people give them food stamps, rent subsides whatever. SS and Medicare are not intended to do that you pay into it and you get paid back according to your contributions you make it means tested it will be the death of SS.

[Hannah Bell]

160. kindly quit labeling everyone who disagrees with you. you're the one who's touting turning social

security into a welfare program financed exclusively by labor.

that's a republican dream if i ever heard one.

[Statistical]

190. People can waste money & live beyond their means without bankruptcy.

It simply means they are saving nothing beyond SS.

A person can do that for 30-40 years and never file bankruptcy. Of course they won't have two nickles to rub together when it comes retirement other than SS.

Nobody is saying not to take care of the poor but the responible and thrifty shouldn't be punished and have the rules changed on them because they saved their entire lives.

[ParkieDem]

34. I generally agree.

But as I said in an earlier post, means-testing Social Security changes it from a "social insurance" program to a "welfare" program -- meaning it could be much less politically viable. You're correct that the program was designed to eliminate poverty among the elderly, but it was also meant to be a system in which all workers paid in, and in which all workers get something. The universality of it makes it a political sacred cow.

[doc03]

48. SS is already means tested to some degree, I get a

pension from my employer and have an IRA for income and the government confiscates taxes on 85% of my SS. A coworker of mine that lived beyond his means, gambled or drank up his check gets to keep his whole SS check. Is that fair when we both paid the equal amount into the system?

[newthinking]

52. enough with the authoritarian falsities please.

Your post sounds like a Rush Limbaugh show. You have a point (about having put in), but please don't resort to that kind of ideology. The country is not as full of welfare moms and everyone but you is not a bum.

You are reflecting unrealistic authoritarian thinking. Read about it here.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

[doc03]

64. You just don't get it, when you work you and your employer pay

into SS. You have two employees that both earn the same income and one puts part of his away for his retirement years and the other one spends his on whatever. When they retire the one that saved his own money for his retirement shouldn't receive less to subsidize the other one that didn't. If you think that is Rush Limbaugh thinking, in that case I think he is 100% right. SS is not a welfare program you work and pay into it, if you make it into a welfare program I guarantee you that will be the end of SS. I will be out there with the Teabaggers if that is what it takes to eliminate myself.

[inna]

81. OMFG. Newsflash: social welfare and progressive taxation are GOOD things,

taken for granted by the rest of the civilized world.

If you think that is Rush Limbaugh thinking, in that case I think he is 100% right. SS is not a welfare program you work and pay into it, if you make it into a welfare program I guarantee you that will be the end of SS. I will be out there with the Teabaggers if that is what it takes to eliminate myself.

omg. :puke:

thanks for making yourself clear. i'm done.

[newthinking]

88. Incredible huh?

This seems to be the "new" democratic party thought around here. "Kinder gentler" Teabagging. And they don't even see that they are infected with values propogated by Republicans.

I fear that it will continue, because as those old enough to know how we were different die, they will have no frame of reference to understand the societal illness that is around them. It seems so normal here, but yet this way of thinking is not the norm in much of the world, only in failed states and authoritarian regimes. We are truly building an anti-social society.

[Hannah Bell]

161. the proposal to turn social security into a welfare program financed exclusively by labor is not

progressive, not democratic, and not liberal.

it's regressive horseshit.

welfare programs should be financed FROM PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAXES, not from REGRESSIVE TAXES ON WAGE LABOR.

and the poster is also correct in saying that uncapping social security completely & turning it into a welfare program will destroy it.

that's what those recommending this course want, as well.

[inna]

212. who THE FUCK proposed to " turn social security into a welfare program financed exclusively by labor

"???

WTF are you talking about??


"welfare programs should be financed FROM PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAXES, not from REGRESSIVE TAXES ON WAGE LABOR."

THAT I completely agree with you on, but what a fucking strawman.


You know, I really resent that you resort to such tactics.

[pattmarty]

108. Simplistic much? Your last sentence about teabaggers says it all.

[inna]

59. "the government confiscates taxes on 85% of my SS"

Could you explain what that means? You only get to keep 15% of your SS check? :shrug:

[doc03]

62. You have to (pay taxes on up to 85% of your SS income) I believe

Raygun put that tax on.

[Hannah Bell]

162. up to 85% of social security benefits are subject to income tax, depending on one's

other income.

this was a reagan innovation.

this is also why social security is ALREADY means-tested, and why raising the cap will increase the dissatisfaction of high income wage earners with the program. and they're already dissatisfied.

why they're paying for 80% of it & getting back a pittance on the deal, they'll be even more so. and they're politically active & well-heeled.

and being as capital also wants to end social security, that will be the end of it.

[grasswire]

58. do you realize how many gov't programs are already means tested?

Student loans.
Mortgage relief.
Food stamps.
Housing assistance.
Energy assistance.
Subsidized child care.
Medicaid.

Just to name a few.

Make too much money, and you get nothing from those programs.

So why shouldn't that rule also apply to Social Security and Medicare?

Oh, and if you are concerned about all the money the taxpayer has contributed to Social Security and Medicare, then the government can just pay it back in a lump sum. The treasury would still save money.

Means test. Means test. No more socialism than any of those other programs.

[doc03]

69. I don't have money taken out of my paycheck earmarked for

any of those. SS and Medicare comes out of your paycheck, it isn't a welfare program. You pay into it and when you retire you get an annuity until you die similar to a company pension plan. You want to kill SS and Medicare go ahead and make it means tested that will kill it faster than any Republican in DC. I am not against any of those things, my mother receives mortgage relief and Medicaid. My brother had a student loan and received energy assistance and food stamps for a time. But my mother never received more money from SS or Medicare than her contributions entitled her to.

[pattmarty]

110. Every goddamn dime that comes out of "your" paycheck goes.............

........to fund ANY program of this government. So yeah, you do indeed pay for those programs too whether you like it or not.

[doc03]

150. Nobody is talking income tax , read the posts before

butting in with smart ass comments. SS and Medicare comes out of all our paychecks to fund SS and Medicare not food stamps or other programs, SS is not welfare. We pay a percentage of our income into those programs and we earn the benefits we receive when we retire. Any moronic idea of means testing SS and taking one working persons benefits they earned and giving those benefits to another will kill SS. The reason SS has survived all these decades is Americans support it because you pay into it and receive benefits when you retire. Just how many people are going to pay into SS if when they turn retirement age some bureaucrat in Washington decides they have a company pension or savings and don't need the money. That will be the death of SS.

[blueworld]

141. I don't know how to answer individuals who replied to my post, so here's a thought

Your points are excellent, but it seems to me that the worry about "welfare" is made irrelevent by the idiocy of the GOP whining about the system going broke. When my mom collected SS, it was reduced by the amount of her so-called pension, so she still had to live with me.

This, for me, implies there's already a degree of "means testing" which works out swell for old rich folks who don't have to rely on a pension - they can simply file & collect SS when they are of eligible age.

IMHO, SS is most definitely a program of support for the working stiffs who NEED it - a welfare program, if you will. Even Welfare has criteria that must be met. And in that case, I think income eligibility should carry more weight than age eligibility, since most folks don't get even a meager pension.

[pitohui]

195. means testing is the first step to killing social security

it worked beautifully w. the public schools -- once the rich and upper middle class no longer attended the public schools they were defunded and destroyed...with "means testing" the powerful class would be excluded from social security and since they are the most politically powerful they would then easily destroy/crush the program since no one they know or care about would benefit from it

you CANNOT have means testing, you MUST have a program where EVERY worker who put into it gets back -- in that way, it's a fair investment and ALL workers are invested in seeing the program succeed

if you wish to destroy social security, then by all means, advocate for means testing, you will be GUARANTEEING that YOU do not ever receive any money nor will any of your relatives who put aside savings over the years

as it exists, social security is the best, safest retirement vehicle that most people can get, a guaranteed check in your old age based on your earnings, NOTHING else is like it, most annuities that you buy are risky and/or pay terrible returns...social security is THE gold standard for retirement planning, it's the one thing you can predict and plan on, when you're in your fifties, if you started saving and investing young (as i did, no kids), then you quickly learn that MOST savings/investing is just going in circles, you CAN'T earn enough to save/invest and have any quality of life in retirement because salaries are just not that high

if you save 10 percent of your pre-tax income for 30 years, all those charts saying you would be a millionaire are a bold-faced lie -- interest rates haven't kept up w. inflation for a decade, property values have collapsed, stock market has gone nowhere -- your money just doesn't grow, that's a fairy tale -- if you can keep it from shrinking so you have it when you're older you have done very well

i wish those publishers and financial advisors who tell people that they can save enough to be millionaires on their own, "because the stock market returns 11% per annum" could be put in federal prison for fraud, this huge lie is one reason young people think social security is a scam, they truly don't realize that if they invested the same amount of money in the stock market that they're paying in social security, they would have a pittance in their old age

what i'm projected to receive from social security is FAR beyond the monthly returns i'm getting from a lifetime of work/investing in the stock market -- and if most people were honest, they'd say the same

social security is the one investment you can rely on to actually return enough so you can eat when you're old

[Vinca]

15. I'd like to know where all those jobs are for 60 somethings.

Bad enough this scheme is paying for wars off grandma's golden years, but there is no way an older person can compete with younger workers for what jobs are available. Jesus . . . we're going to be a nation of white-haired burger flippers and Walmart greeters.

[Obamanaut]

16. Full retirement age is currently 67 for many (birth yr 1960+ IIRC), and

early SS can still be had at age 62, with a slight penalty for incomes over a designated amount for those still working.

[doc03]

20. Rather than raising the full retirement age I would be

more in favor of raising the early retirement age. But raising the cap and leaving it the way it is would be far better.

[ParkieDem]

35. What good would this do?

It would make more people wait longer for their benefits.

I generally don't have a problem with raising the retirement age to 70 -- the demographic realities of our society make something along these lines necessary. HOWEVER, there should still be plenty of early retirement options available for those who cannot or do not wish to work past a certain age. That's the way the system is currently set up, and I don't think any of the proposals for raising the FULL retirement age affect the EARLY retirement age.

[doc03]

47. I don't know about you but I doubt I will make 70

I would rather sacrifice a year of early retirement.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

18. Raise the cap, and the rate

and broaden the definition of income subject to the tax, and pick up some estate tax money.

[liberal N proud]

22. Politically acceptable?

These fuckers have been stealing from Social Security for years thinking it was politically acceptable.

:nuke:

[joeybee12]

23. My age of 70 is not someone else's age of 70...

...I am white collar...I might be able to last...could a construction worker last until 70 or any other job demanding physical labor?

[newthinking]

30. exactly. Raising the age above what it is simply means suffering. Not "working"

for many. We need to think this through.

[theothersnippywshrub]

36. This proposal is the absolute worst way to strengthen the solvency of Social Security.

[newthinking]

38. And that is what we are likely to end up with. We rarely get well thought

and good legislation anymore. We need a change of faces in Washington. These guys are all mostly full of stunted minds and myopic views. And that includes many in our own party.

[WillyT]

39. Grrr... K & R !!!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

:nuke:

[indepat]

41. Then Hoyer needs to get busy tackling the burgeoning defense budget wherein the US, with apprx. 5%

of the world's population, spends apprx. as much as the rest of the world, and institute fairness in the tax code so that enormously profitable large corporations no longer pay little or no US federal income tax and Warren Buffett doesn't send a smaller percentage of his total income to Uncle Sammie than does his secretary. Equitably addressing these issues should take much of the hysteria and hypocrisy out of the debate. :P

Edited for context

[lib2DaBone]

55. Put a $1 trading tax on each Wall Street Transaction....

Put the money into Social Security. It will shore up SS and Wall Street will never miss it ...because they pay no taxes now on Billions in profit.

Wha.. wha.. do you mean? The current administration works for Wall Street and could care less about Main Street? So you mean that our current leaders would never do anything to benefit our Senior Citizens?

... but...but... I don't understand...? I thought we voted for change and hope we can believe in and... and... ohh.. never mind.

[glitch]

56. Pay back what has been "borrowed" from SS by cutting defense and raising taxes on incomes +250k.

Problem solved asshole.

[Foo Fighter]

80. Bingo. n/t

[Caretha]

57. Certainly

If you can promise that the government can raise the standard of living for everyone, that our life expectancy exceeds 100 because of the great health care benefits we all receive, and that pharmaceutical companies, all corps and universities spend trillions of dollars on researching and implementing the knowledge of how to promote lifespans of 150 years and greater, I'm all for it.

If the above criteria cannot be met within 2 to 3 years, then the answer is not only no, but fuckin' no.

[dflprincess]

60. Meanwhile in France

people took to the streets when their government decided to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.

We could learn a few things from the French.

[lib2DaBone]

63. Yes. Good point. American workers are pussies.

The French would not put up with half of the abuses American workers have endured.

[Foo Fighter]

82. That's probably true in comparison to a lot of countries.

However, rising up in those countries probably wouldn't involve missing an episode of 'American Idol' so hey, I guess you have to take that into account.

[Enthusiast]

174. I seriously doubt the French

are subjected to anything like this ruse we call a media.

[unkachuck]

61. "...inescapable challenge of the nation's enormous debt."

....let those who created, benefited and profited from our national debt pay it off....leave Social Security alone!

....any slimy, worthless politician who attempts to fuck with Social Security in even the slightest way, deserves to be ousted from office and pilloried or worse....

....unless you're going to improve or increase SS benefits, LEAVE SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE!....this means you, motherfucker.

[inna]

86. OMFG. Do you even BELIEVE this shit???

They've been looting literally TRILLIONS from the SS Trust Fund.

Now they're going for the grand heist, right there in the daylight and for everyone to see?

I have to say.... Either they think the American people are very, very stupid. ... Or we *are* stupid, and they know something that we don't.



Either way, I have never, ever, EVER seen such utter and open contempt for the people. This goes right along with cutting 2 million unemployed off their only source of income, in the worst job market since the Great Depression. While giving hundreds of billions of $ of public funds to their corrupt buddies.


:nuke:
:nuke:
:nuke:

[Greyhound]

111. This is the real motivation behind all of this BS. Because they have been 'borrowing' trillions for

decades, and the boomers are hitting retirement so payouts are going to accelerate.

Well gee golly willikers, they don't have enough money to pay back what they've taken, that is, without taking it back from those that benefited from the 'loans', namely your local pork consumer, defense contractor, and infrastructure thief. IOW, the rich.

[Enthusiast]

175. We have got to let them know

that we know it is nothing more than an act of theft.

[kath]

66. CUT THE WAR BUDGET, dammit! And change the name of the "Defense Dept." back to its original title -

the Department of War.

[Bluebear]

76. Love ya.

[Foo Fighter]

84. Ah, but it's not the "war budget" anymore.

Now we have the Defense budget and the "supplemental" budgets for killing people and there's the offshoots like the DHS and pretty soon, your "defense" budget gets out of hand.

How about we cut the supplementals to zilch, cut the DoD budget in half (for starters), wrap the DHS and other similar "defense" departments into that budget, rename it the "Department of killing people for fun and/or corporate profit" and then take it from there?

[knownothing]

67. not too worried

I'm 24, and I figure Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare will be bankrupt by the time I get around to retiring. As such, I plan on saving up and investing so that I can support myself at that time. Either that, or I work until I die.

There's no easy fix to this because everybody wants their piece of the pie and nobody's willing to compromise their benefits so that the system will remain solvent down the road.

[doc03]

72. From some of the mindset on DU if you save up your

own money for your retirement they will take it off of you and give it to one of your co-workers that put his money in the slots or booze all his life.

[newthinking]

89. Take your money and spend it on booze? Parrot more Republican BS why don't you?

Next you will be spouting about welfare moms sitting at home making babies.

:rofl:

[doc03]

98. I think you and knownothing need to swap handles. I say

spend their money on booze isn't to be taken literally knownothing one person may have just spent all his money living beyond his means be it nice cars etc. If we both made the same money and paid the same into the system SS is not intended to take money from me and supplement his lifestyle. I started putting money away years ago for retirement others that I worked with didn't some may have spent all their money on toys (boats, 4 wheelers, cars etc.) and yes some gambled it up or drank it up. SS is not to supplement their lack of responsibility. Like they told us way back years ago retirement is a three legged stool SS, pension and savings, SS is not meant to give you an extravagant lifestyle. If you want to have a comfortable retirement you need to make up that difference yourself not rob from Peter to pay Paul. Like I said many times before you make SS a welfare program that will be the end of it, the taxpayers will no longer support it. You think people will willingly continue to pay into a system to have it taken from them and given to someone else? That's what they do in some of the European counties that are bankrupt. A co-worker of mine actually started getting a SS check from Italy when he was I think 55, he came over here at a very young age but apparently had the required credits to get a check. Maybe all you need to be is a naturalized citizen over there to get SS but Italy is one of those socialist countries teetering on the brink of bankruptcy along with Greece, Spain and Portugal.

[pattmarty]

114. Welcome to DU, Rush.

[knownothing]

151. Come on now!

Social Security was never originally intended to be anything near what it is today. People didn't live nearly as long back then, and nobody thought it would become the main source of income for senior citizens. And any system that gives out benefits to more people than the number of people contributing is bound to go bankrupt. Nothing against my girlfriend's mother, but she has lived a very long time, and she has worked very little in that time. She has gotten way more money from social security than she ever put into it. As a result of such, I won't get any social security after contributing to it for practically my entire career.

I'm not a liberal or conservative. I just have a modicum of common sense, and that modicum tells me that money doesn't grown on trees, and treating it like it does is a sure fire way to bankruptcy (which, in our government's case, will come when China figures out the United States probably won't ever be able to pay them back the money that they loaned us).

Which is why my only GUARANTEED source of income when I retire doesn't involve SS or even a 401K, so much as a Roth IRA.

[Enthusiast]

176. None of this would matter

if the social security funds weren't stolen to pay for tax cuts for the ultra wealthy and unnecessary wars of choice.

[Statistical]

191. Not true.

Even with all the borrowed funds being repaid with interest SS will still have a shortfall.

[Enthusiast]

202. When? In 2075?

Why bring these right wing talking points to the DU? No one is going to believe your propaganda.

[Statistical]

204. It is a reality. Even Democratic leaders accept it.

However I am NOT saying we should
* extend retirement age
OR
* cut benefits

It is possible to make SS solvent without doing that.

Still the reality is SS projected outlays before the baby boomers die will be greater than projected income.
Your insults won't change that.



2041 as of the projections in 2008.
The exact debate is a matter of some debate.
OASDI Trustees' 2009 projection is 2037.
CBO 2009 projeciton is 2052.

Still nobody in any party believes SS will be solvent without some changes (like raising the cap, requiring all employees to participate, taxing SS income for high net worth individuals and possibly yes raising contribution rate by 0.5%).

[ProgressiveMajority]

70. Inevitable!

This is going to happen.

People here are mentioning massively cutting the defense budget to offset the number of retirees. Not going to happen. Clinton in the 90s COMPLETELY blew any real chance at cutting down our defense spending... I mean he totally blew it. This can't be understated. When Bush stole 2000, I cried for my pocket book because I knew we'd blown once and for all our chance at cutting military spending back to a sane level. The cold war was over, Russia was looking friendly and China was yet to come on the stage in a major way. Now we have China with a defense budget growing 20% compounded by year

CHINESE MILITARY BUDGET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PLA_military_budget_1999-2008.GIF

Don't get me wrong... we could easily afford to cut defense spending and still have a vastly superior military. I'm just pointing out the simple fact that such a cut is not going to happen when our congress-critters can point to the above Graph and say "No, no we can't cut spending, if we were spending that much back in the 90s, how could we possibly cut spending now!!"

Then we also have the coming costs of pensions for government workers retiring at 55... yet another problem that politicians set us up for and we can't now fix. (I'm totally against backing out of pensions agreements, people depend on them now. But the original agreements were irresponsible and now we're gonna be paying for it).

[jeanpalmer]

101. Defense spending is largely pork barrel

and a waste. We get little out of it. And the support for it is bipartisan. It's like a welfare system for weapons manufacturers, except that it's not innocuous seeing that it supports a lot of death and destruction. Politicians of both parties love defense spending because it allows them to bring home the bacon through earmarks. The Defense Dept. understands this aspect of it and accordingly makes sure that almost every congressional district gets its share of defense money, making it very unlikely that any organized congressional opposition will ever develop. It's a curious sight to see nominally liberal Democrats fight for their share of defense money, contributing to the downward spiral of the Federal budget. There is a stimulus aspect to it as well, as there is to any federal spending. As Clinton found out when he cut defense spending in CA and contributed to an economic downturn in the early 90's. He reversed that quickly when he realized the negative effect it would have on his reelection.

Currently, the Government collects about $1.15 trillion a year in personal and corporate income taxes. Almost all of it (~$1 trillion) is spent on defense in one form or another. The MIC owns and runs our government, and it's why we can't afford social programs and why they're going to cut SS. It's a bipartisan effort that is really hurting our country financially. And it's never going to end because the MIC + their accomplices in the media will always support it and propagandize the people to accept it.

[Rex]

83. They don't give a shit, about people or the environment.

THEY got theirs!

[old mark]

91. My "Full benefit" would not come in to effect till age 66 - I retired at 59, got my

reduced rate Social Security at 62....my desire now is to simply live long enough to make up the difference and get ahead of the game.
Why is there a cap on SS payments? How many millionaires will need their SS benefits to live on after retirement?

I hated working for decades, and retired after several heart attacks, surgeries. depression and diabetes - I don't know now if I'll make 70, but I am really enjoying life for the first time in many years.

mark

[WinkyDink]

94. You would need to live to 78 to break even, taking SS at 62 (which I also will do).

[old mark]

123. Thanks, WD: I'm glad I did my exercises this morning.

FWIW, my dad is still alive down near Galviston TX...He will be 94 on Jan 1st.

mark

[WinkyDink]

197. I'm 50% to the good: my father died at 64; my mother is still independent at 86 on 7/17--God willing

[old mark]

205. My family is opposite - mom's side, all but one died of heart disease before 60 -

my dad's mom lived to be 88, hs is still around at 93.

I have already had my bout with heart disease in '03 and survived, so I am looking for a long old age.

I want to get every nickle....


mark

[Hannah Bell]

163. funny how having even a little money, free time & no one looking over your shoulder

can do that.

and we all could have that, most of our lives.

the jobs actually needed for production of the goods, infrastructure & reinvestment research & training people need & use are perhaps half of what exist. the rest are police, propaganda, management of system-created dysfunction, etc.

freedom. we could all have it.

[marketbreakaway]

100. Social Security = Ponzi Scheme - Time to get real.

For those of you who think that you have been paying into a retirement account, please get real.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It is run in an identical fashion to the way Madoff ran his retirement plans.

Let's just untangle the whole mess...

Here is a proposal: 1. Everyone gets Medicare, (but, unlike England, is everyone is free to supplement).
2. Anyone can get social security, based on economic need (ending welfare et.al.).

The current system is nothing more than a GIGANTIC transfer of wealth from the young to the old. THAT IS IMMORAL AND INSANE! How about we simply help support those who need it. If one cannot work, does it matter the age????

A single clean system is the way to go.

[WinkyDink]

106. Slight difference: When the young got to be old, the money has been there.

[Enthusiast]

177. 18 posts and one is

that social security is a Ponzi scheme. A word for word Republican talking point.

[pattmarty]

102. I know as of late at DU there has been disagreements over how.........

..........."liberal is liberal". There ought be a fucking poll here to determine and by the way unite true liberals under an umbrella truly progressive ideals, but that's for another thread. Why I bring this up here and now is that this talk of the so called "cat food commission". We are now hearing talk about SS that 10 yrs ago would have been considered heresy to ANY Dems and MOST Republicans. It today seems that the Dems in favor of this would be considered Republicans only a few short years ago with the "reforms" presented for SS. What probably will happen with most Dems going along with it is they will raise the retirement age to 70 YO and even possibly cut some of the low benefits. First, most here know that the system is "solvent" for at least another 10 yrs give or take and secondly to "fix" the system so there is no increase in age or decrease in benefits we need only raise the max on ANY income earned to maybe 150K per year. The reason we don't do this is rather simple, the better off among us don't want to pay more and are usually quite able to have "investments" in some type of personal plan for their own retirement and won't have the need for SS as their ONLY source of income when they decide to retire. The Dems in the past would have no fucking way signed on to such a plan. It is only in the last 20 yrs or so that the Dems trying to get elected have left their core principles of helping poor, middle class, working class, and women to fend for themselves (just like the Republicans only a little less meaner) as to Medicare and SS. Look what "liberal" Clinton signed on to in 1996 with the so called welfare reform that basically said "fuck you" to people in need. My opinion on this is if you can support this bullshit and it is bullshit you are no fucking liberal. I don't give a fuck about studies that show the "average" age for older people is rising before they die. The people that really need this plan are the lower income working people that have shittier health because of lack of or poor medical insurance and people that have actually physically worked at difficult jobs and for those reasons would be in greater need of an earlier retirement. Further and just importantly, where in the fuck are these people going to find jobs to support themselves until they reach the age of 70? I don't think there will be enough "greeting" positions or McJobs to go around for the expected increase in that age group looking for work in the future. Both my parents died before they collected a fucking cent from either SS or Medicare. I had a close friend that died just before he turned 71. Bottom fucking line is if you are "better off" and had good medical insurance throughout your life you "might" make it, but for a majority of working people you are just shit out of luck.

I believe it is too late already to do much about it. The powers in charge (the Democratic & Republican parties) have made up their minds and look for the MAIN focus of the commission to be on SS & Medicare NOT defense, corporate welfare, fixing the unjust tax system or LETTING THE BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE. Just remember folks, that the upper classes are taxed too much already and that will hurt any recovery because we all know how they would "invest" all that money they are now paying in taxes. I hope everyone knows I was being facetious in that last sentence. You never know the way some thinking goes here recently at DU.

[WinkyDink]

107. You've said it all, clearly and accurately. I AM SHOCKED AT DEMOCRATS' ACQUIESCENCE.

WE HAVE BEEN RE-DEFINED AND CO-OPTED. Decency and empathy are "radical left-wing" ideals.

I took to the streets when I was 19; I went to DC when I was 25; I marched in NYC when I was 53.

Now I'm 60. Will the young join me if there is a march to SAVE THEIR, NOT MY, SOCIAL SECURITY FUTURE?

[donco6]

117. Not from what I'm reading here.

They all seem fine with working till they drop.

[Enthusiast]

180. They think they will live forever.

Most of us felt the same way but they have victims of a massive re-education effort.

[Enthusiast]

179. RE-DEFINED AND CO-OPTED.

Yup.

[madrchsod]

113. +1

you summed up how i feel about the shit going down. i had to retire at 62 because no one would hire me after 58yrs old.

[donco6]

116. There was a big discussion about this the other day -

It didn't go well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/8/882569/-Who-is-More-Conservative:-Ronald-Reagan-or-Barack-Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x367995

[tekisui]

125. The leaders of the Democratic Party are much more interested in

maintaining political power than providing for the people. The party has been corrupted and is no longer a liberal or progressive party. The parrots on DU will follow the party into the right wing, if that is what they are told is necessary to maintain power.

[Enthusiast]

178. Right on, pattmarty! nt

[xchrom]

109. with friends like these...nt

[Nay]

118. If Democrats sign on to this monstrosity, they are dead to me.

[Enthusiast]

181. Me too. nt

[INdemo]

119. We need term limits now........

[ElsewheresDaughter]

120. try and get hired to any job at age 60...then get back to me....

My sister worked in the gaming industry for 25 years in Atlantic City. They don;t want mature dealers and she has been out of work for 5 years.....she lost her house a year later and is now barely surviving on $110 a month in food stamps. She cleans houses to make the rent in an upstate NY ski resort town but the other 8 months are really tough on her.she rides a bike, can't afford a car...nobody wants to hire a 60 yr old women on 2 wheels even if you look like you're -40.

She dreams of age 65....she prays for it....will she survive till then in this economy?

She has no children and is alone in the world other then me and I do all that I can to help her.

[eilen]

128. My Mom had to retire at 62

She had COPD and kept losing jobs because she was getting sick with no insurance. We prayed that she would survive to 65 so she could get adequate appropriate consistent medical care under a physician instead of the student NP's at the clinic. She survives on under $800 a month after her Medicare A, B, and D fees. Luckily she lives with my brother or she would be living on day old bread and moldy cheese.

If my brother wasn't there, she would come and live with me (in fact, I ask her to come every time I talk to her).

My Dad retired at 62 because no one would hire him, he supplemented his SS by working during tax season doing taxes and had a few private clients as a CFP. He barely made ends meet and he was some kind of saver --squeaked quarters out of nickels. He died at 69, 5 days shy of his 70th birthday.

Mom and Dad were both white collar workers.

[Enthusiast]

182. That is so sad.

And she is just one of millions in a similar fix.

[retread]

124. We argue over a pittance while guys like this asshat are free to game the system,

perpetrate massive fraud, and come away with over 300 million dollars; then run for governor of Florida?


Pogo said it best:

[IndianaGreen]

135. Our DLC Administration wants to take your money to pump up Wall Street

That's what is behind the efforts to sabotage Social Security.

[Enthusiast]

183. I fear you are right. nt

[Odin2005]

138. RAISE THE CAP, you morons!

:grr:

[shanti]

196. that's going to hurt a LOT of people

:( i probably won't be affected personally, as i will have a modest pension to combine with my early SS (plan to take it at 62). but i know LOTS of people my age (55) who will suffer or die before they get to 70, if it happens.

[Blue_In_AK]

200. It makes no sense not to raise the cap.

And how on earth is it going to help things to insist that all those older people remain in the work force? There aren't enough jobs to go around as it is, especially if corporations continue to outsource. When I started taking my social security at 62, I felt like I was doing society a favor. Someone else can have my job. Even the work I was doing when I was self-employed can be done by a younger person.

[Imagevision]

206. It'll never happen, this is from John Boner's wish list and nothing more...yaaaawwnn...

[Statistical]

215. Um it did happen.... twice.

Full retirement age was raised from 65 to 66 and then 66 to 67.

Given that persons born today have a life expencentecy of 2 years higher than those board in 1960s it certainly seems POSSIBLE it will happen.

Remember the plan isn't for a change of people who have already been working but rather new workers which was done twice in the past.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

Currently (somewhat simplified):

born Full Retirement
1937 65
1938-1941 65 and some months (exact amount depends on birth year)
1942 66
1943-1959 66 and some months (exact amount depends on birth year)
1960+ 67

Is it so inconceivable that someday Congress should change it to be something like:

born Full Retirement
1937 65
1938-1941 65 and some months (exact amount depends on birth year)
1942 66
1943-1959 66 and some months (exact amount depends on birth year)
1960-1979 67
1980-1989 68
1990-1999 69
2000+ 70

I don't think it is "never going to happen". History has shown Democrats are more than willing to "bend" SS just not completely dismantle it.

[XOKCowboy]

209. Well the pols and pundits wouldn't want their tax rates raised. I feel trickled down on.

I don't think my knees can make it till 70......

[Scurrilous]

210. Kick

:kick:

[Zavulon]

211. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, and it won't be long before the age goes up to 72.

Just accept it: Social Security is a tax, you're not guaranteed anything in return, they'd rather raise the age and / or the rate than the cap (there has to be a surplus for Capitol Hill parasites to blow elsewhere), and although well-intentioned the program has turned into a massive financial assfucking for many.

I would gladly forfeit everything I've paid into the system along with all future "benefits" just to be let out of this scam right now.