HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Melissa Harris Perry Just...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:49 AM

Melissa Harris Perry Just Said: "It's Reasonable To Raise the Retirement Age"

Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:00 PM - Edit history (4)

It looks like the catapulting of proganda has begun. The pundits have the talking points and the Third Way Democrats like Van Hollen & Conrad have already put out feelers. I'm gathering all of the evidence and plan to put it together in a video. When you see anyone on the Democratic side pushing for these devastating cuts for the American people, please let me know and I'll be sure to add it to my video of shameful Democrats who plan to betray their constituents and destroy the pillars of the Democratic Party.

Edited to include contact info:

http://melissaharrisperry.com/contact.html

Edited to refine the quote. Sorry sticklers, the actual quote is just as bad.

231 replies, 25346 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 231 replies Author Time Post
Reply Melissa Harris Perry Just Said: "It's Reasonable To Raise the Retirement Age" (Original post)
Oilwellian Nov 2012 OP
haikugal Nov 2012 #1
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #4
FredStembottom Nov 2012 #73
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #2
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #6
UnrepentantLiberal Nov 2012 #45
RKP5637 Nov 2012 #131
Riley18 Nov 2012 #3
freshwest Nov 2012 #107
RKP5637 Nov 2012 #135
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #200
liberal N proud Nov 2012 #5
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #10
liberal N proud Nov 2012 #16
RKP5637 Nov 2012 #136
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #186
plethoro Nov 2012 #214
cilla4progress Nov 2012 #7
dawg Nov 2012 #20
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #164
dawg Nov 2012 #168
Heather MC Nov 2012 #51
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #62
kelly1mm Nov 2012 #211
heaven05 Nov 2012 #55
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #64
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #60
femrap Nov 2012 #85
Squinch Nov 2012 #130
femrap Nov 2012 #187
eridani Nov 2012 #96
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #190
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #103
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #140
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #202
aquart Nov 2012 #227
merrily Nov 2012 #229
lovuian Nov 2012 #8
Walk away Nov 2012 #24
okieinpain Nov 2012 #82
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #101
PETRUS Nov 2012 #9
FredStembottom Nov 2012 #72
ProSense Nov 2012 #11
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #35
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #126
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #12
MrYikes Nov 2012 #13
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #23
Walk away Nov 2012 #27
okieinpain Nov 2012 #84
Walk away Nov 2012 #117
okieinpain Nov 2012 #121
Walk away Nov 2012 #146
okieinpain Nov 2012 #152
Walk away Nov 2012 #172
Lasher Nov 2012 #14
Sedona Nov 2012 #18
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #145
ProSense Nov 2012 #19
Lasher Nov 2012 #31
ProSense Nov 2012 #48
Lasher Nov 2012 #122
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #137
Lasher Nov 2012 #167
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #169
Lasher Nov 2012 #173
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #174
Lasher Nov 2012 #176
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #178
Lasher Nov 2012 #180
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #182
Lasher Nov 2012 #184
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #185
Lasher Nov 2012 #194
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #198
Lasher Nov 2012 #210
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #188
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #21
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #147
Zen Democrat Nov 2012 #15
OKNancy Nov 2012 #36
eridani Nov 2012 #100
BuelahWitch Nov 2012 #114
physioex Nov 2012 #141
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #149
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #165
eridani Nov 2012 #218
JVS Nov 2012 #219
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #17
upi402 Nov 2012 #30
Supersedeas Nov 2012 #203
NCarolinawoman Nov 2012 #209
amborin Nov 2012 #22
Cass Nov 2012 #25
patrice Nov 2012 #26
CTyankee Nov 2012 #42
patrice Nov 2012 #50
progressoid Nov 2012 #28
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #150
upi402 Nov 2012 #29
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #32
upi402 Nov 2012 #34
ProSense Nov 2012 #39
PETRUS Nov 2012 #65
upi402 Nov 2012 #66
ProSense Nov 2012 #76
upi402 Nov 2012 #87
ProSense Nov 2012 #90
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #43
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #95
forestpath Nov 2012 #33
flamingdem Nov 2012 #37
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #38
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #40
judesedit Nov 2012 #41
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #44
appacom Nov 2012 #86
LineLineLineReply !
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #125
DirkGently Nov 2012 #144
Enrique Nov 2012 #46
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #53
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #47
UnrepentantLiberal Nov 2012 #91
RKP5637 Nov 2012 #134
trixie Nov 2012 #49
RB TexLa Nov 2012 #139
mythology Nov 2012 #157
OKNancy Nov 2012 #52
grantcart Nov 2012 #77
heaven05 Nov 2012 #54
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #56
heaven05 Nov 2012 #61
Blasphemer Nov 2012 #102
99Forever Nov 2012 #57
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #58
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #59
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #63
plethoro Nov 2012 #67
jtuck004 Nov 2012 #68
valerief Nov 2012 #69
robinlynne Nov 2012 #70
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #71
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #74
LovingA2andMI Nov 2012 #97
haikugal Nov 2012 #224
PufPuf23 Nov 2012 #75
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #94
pansypoo53219 Nov 2012 #78
okieinpain Nov 2012 #79
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #108
okieinpain Nov 2012 #120
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #212
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #113
okieinpain Nov 2012 #118
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #124
okieinpain Nov 2012 #156
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #163
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #217
eridani Nov 2012 #222
PETRUS Nov 2012 #128
okieinpain Nov 2012 #154
PETRUS Nov 2012 #160
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #216
eridani Nov 2012 #221
ProSense Nov 2012 #80
question everything Nov 2012 #81
GoCubsGo Nov 2012 #111
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #83
ProSense Nov 2012 #88
NNN0LHI Nov 2012 #89
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #98
NNN0LHI Nov 2012 #105
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #110
treestar Nov 2012 #119
PETRUS Nov 2012 #132
Cleita Nov 2012 #92
avaistheone1 Nov 2012 #93
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #99
ProSense Nov 2012 #104
11.11 time prompt. Nov 2012 #106
GoCubsGo Nov 2012 #109
kenny blankenship Nov 2012 #112
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #116
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #123
JVS Nov 2012 #220
haikugal Nov 2012 #225
SoCalDem Nov 2012 #115
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #127
SoCalDem Nov 2012 #133
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #231
RKP5637 Nov 2012 #129
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #138
DirkGently Nov 2012 #142
Barack_America Nov 2012 #143
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #148
still_one Nov 2012 #151
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #155
still_one Nov 2012 #158
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #161
still_one Nov 2012 #201
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #205
still_one Nov 2012 #207
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #153
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #159
B Calm Nov 2012 #162
ReRe Nov 2012 #166
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #170
brokechris Nov 2012 #171
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #175
brokechris Nov 2012 #179
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #195
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #177
lbrtbell Nov 2012 #181
madrchsod Nov 2012 #183
MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #189
ProSense Nov 2012 #191
BlueinOhio Nov 2012 #192
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #193
ProSense Nov 2012 #197
ProSense Nov 2012 #196
woo me with science Nov 2012 #199
BeyondGeography Nov 2012 #204
Thekaspervote Nov 2012 #206
DJ13 Nov 2012 #208
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #213
dchill Nov 2012 #215
theHandpuppet Nov 2012 #223
99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #226
Romulox Nov 2012 #228
Skittles Nov 2012 #230

Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:51 AM

1. Sounds good...I for one will need it in my efforts to stop them from raising the retirement age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:02 AM

4. Yes, there are many here who are in denial

So perhaps when they see and hear it being said by Democratic officials and pundits, they'll believe it? I won't hold my breath, but it certainly will make it harder to deny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:05 PM

73. I agree.

I hope the OP can help get this place off it's President as American Idol bias and get us all back to real discussions of real actions and the degree to which they will help or hurt us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:51 AM

2. It won't be a problem for her or anyone close to her, so

No problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:05 AM

6. When you make the media part of the 1%...

the American people get the shaft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:18 PM

45. Yep.

 

2012 was a choice between bad and worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:19 PM

131. Yep, what's good for the other guy doesn't effect them, so what the hell, screw the

rest, I made out OK. I know none want to hear it, but sometimes there's a lot of crossover between Rs&Ds when it comes to the haves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:00 AM

3. Thank you! We do not need wealthy people

Telling us what is okay. Laborers need earlier Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riley18 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:40 PM

107. +1. And among those wealthy, the well-manicured and coiffed media pundits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riley18 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:26 PM

135. K&R !!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riley18 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:30 PM

200. It isn't just laborers who get fired when they reach 60-65

well before the current, official Social Security age of full benefits. And that is the problem. Older workers, in spite of the laws prohibiting discrimination against them, are discriminated against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:02 AM

5. There goes another rug

They keep pulling rugs out from under me.

Last week I learned that my pension will be ending. 28 years of contribution and at least need 10 more years to retire and now I have figure out how to compensate. On top of that, I no longer feel that my job is secure.

Next they will pull the safety nets Medicare and Social Security out from under us just as we are getting closer.

Ever feel like the system is being designed as you go to keep you from getting ahead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:08 AM

10. Here's the scenario my husband & I are looking at

He's two years older than me. When he turns 67, I still won't be eligible for Medicare for another 2 years under this plan. So he'll have to work til he's near 70 before we can both be protected. It sucks to be an American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:21 AM

16. That's not too much different than my wife and myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:28 PM

136. I'm not very impressed with America and its race to the bottom either. US = United Stupidity! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:33 PM

186. Not if we stand up and fight them NOW. I am so sorry about

your pension, that is just so wrong. But who do we have to blame really? You've been here on DU. Remember all the attacks on anyone who tried to bring up these issues DURING election season? We are told to stfu because 'there's an election coming up'. As if that is not the BEST TIME to let our politicians know what we expect of them.

We KNEW when they said 'SS will not be discussed during the election' that a deal was already made.

Now we have to work even harder to stop them. It is going to destroy the Dem Party if the open the door to the SS fund even a crack, and I hope they know it. Best way to let them know is to post on the WH blog and to call Reps, both Repubs and Dems. And to join all the organizations who were worried about this before the election, and formed a huge coalition to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #186)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:25 AM

214. I agree 100 per cent with what you suggest...However,

 

if what you say does not work, it will be time for rakes and shoves because if they can take what we lawfully earned all our working lives, then they can damn well pay the ultimate price if they try and steal it. And I will be joined by millions. No one likes to be conned either; however, that's what looks like is coming down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:05 AM

7. Why should millionaires and billionaires get SS?

Or sorry, if that is too far off-topic ...

I know the theoretical reasoning, at least some of it, but practically speaking?

Just wanted to get some dialogue going in general about these "entitlements" and reforming them ...
\

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:26 AM

20. Means testing would be a good first step at completely eliminating the programs.

It would eliminate political support from many of the upper-incomers who would be affected and from many middle-incomers stupid enough to believe they would be affected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:42 PM

164. Many people aren't as base as you imagine them. Look at rich people, many WANT to pay higher taxes

to help society. Some people don't mind undergoing a means test for benefit eligibility. What should be clear is the NO ONE should be allowed to opt out of paying into the system.

Is your observation any different from wealthy people who claim that less wealthy people don't work as hard because they know government will help them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #164)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:24 PM

168. Of course many people aren't that base, but some are.

Including some who aren't rich enough to qualify for the means-testing in the first place, but are stupid enough to think it applies to them anyway.

We are already struggling to prevent the dismantling of these programs. Anything that further erodes their political support is harmful.

As for your comparison to claims about poor people not working as hard because they know the government will help them .... to some extent those claims are probably true. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't provide help. Everything in this country shouldn't be geared toward wringing every last ounce of productivity out of the working classes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:34 PM

51. I think you make a great point

Why not cut off Medicare and SS if you are at a certain ASSEST level as well as income level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heather MC (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:44 PM

62. lousy idea unless your goal is to destroy both programs

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heather MC (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:14 PM

211. Do you know that the ACA removes the asset test for Medicaid? Theoretically, you could have

2 million dollars in the bank, 5 cars, a 2 million dollar home, a beach house, a speed boat, etc.... and have the government provide your medical care so long as your income is less than 135% of poverty level. To think that the President has any thoughts of putting asset tests on SS/Medicare is not realistic. They actually took away the states ability to have asset tests for the medical program for the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:38 PM

55. they

don't need it. Just good old amerikkkan greed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #55)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:46 PM

64. irrelevant. it's not a need-based program. and the fraction of SS money going to

 

'millionaires and billionaires' is passingly small. administrative costs for a means-tested program would be higher than any savings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:43 PM

60. They don't NEED to be reformed. And no need for the scare quotes around

 

entitlements.

Means-testing is a cynical ploy. It would cost more and destroy support for the program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:23 PM

85. Social Security

 

is an Insurance Program. No one can foretell the future...will you need retirement income beyond what you have saved? Will you become disabled before retirement and need income for basic needs?

Same with Home Insurance. No one can know if their house will burn to the ground or be vandalized. Now after the homeowner sells the home, does she/he demand all the money back from the Home Insurer???? No.

So you were lucky in life and accumulated massive amounts of money and assets, do you need SS income? No. Does that income make any difference to your life style? No. The wealthy retiree should get down on all fours and kiss the ground and thank The Universe that they do NOT need SS Income. But they don't.

Someone who is a member of the Working Poor for their entire life...it is difficult to set aside money for retirement. But they have put away money for their retirement via the SS system. They will need it. And maybe some of those people will never be able to stop working.

Means testing of SS Income is one way to reduce the outflow of SS Income to those who don't need it.

Of course, I have a different mindset than most...maybe I'm a person who SHARES and understands that by 'the grace of Goddess/Universe go I.'

I really have nothing much but contempt for the selfish Elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femrap (Reply #85)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:18 PM

130. I agree but there's another DU post today that did the math and found the increase in costs

to means test would be higher than the savings to the program. So for that reason I would support ditching the idea of means testing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #130)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:35 PM

187. I thought that the

 

Means Test was done on one's tax return. How does that cost a lot?

It would be a one or two line calculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:51 PM

96. Because they paid into it, that's why

People getting the maximum ~$32K/year are about 1% of recipients, so eliminating them would mean exactly jackshit to overall finances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #96)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:41 PM

190. Bingo! It's simple, they paid into it and that should be the end

of the discussion. To even consider not paying them what they earned, regardless of their financial status, is simply wrong.

It would be a form of theft.

If they want to donate their share back into the system, then leave it up to them. But no means test, it simply isn't relevant to SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:10 PM

103. Because when they start means testing two things happen.

1) millionaires isn't the cut off, middle class is the cut off.
2) instead of a universal benefit it becomes "welfare".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:38 PM

140. Means testing is not required, it causes too many problems anyway. Greatly increase or

 

eliminate the cap and then cap the annual benefit. That's doable as it doesn't change any of the existing rules, just shifts them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:50 PM

202. Don't worry. The rich pay higher taxes when they receive

Social Security. Just like everyone else. Most people do not understand how small the Social Security benefits really are. You pay in all your life. You get out only a small monthly stipend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:34 AM

227. Introducing rightwing talking points is always useful.

How else will we refine our arguments to needle sharp?

Although I prefer to have some warning before I see your question so I can take anti-nausea medication. It literally makes me sick every time someone falls for the smooth, soothing, utterly divisive and destructive machination of that question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:43 AM

229. Because they paid into it?

Social Security is not welfare or SSI (SSI being essentially a welfare program).

Social Security is Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance.

You cannot collect it at all unless you paid into it for a certain amount of quarters.

It was established on the basis that everyone who did pay into it for a certain amount of quarter would be able to collect it. You don't change the rules or the contract after one side (the worker) has fully performed his or her end of the bargain.

You don't ask why a millionaire or billionaire who has paid in full for an insurance policy is entitled to collect on that policy, do you?

Why would you expect more fidelity to a contract from a private company that you would from your government?


Aside from breach of contract and morality, if Social Security (OASDI) becomes more and more like SSI, Social Security will disappear and we will be left with only welfare. And anyone who loves cutting programs loves cutting welfare most. Just ask Bill Clinton.

(Edited to fix italics.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:05 AM

8. Any Congressman who goes after Medicare or Social Security will be out of

a job

the place is to cut the Military Budget filled with tons of parties fast women and 300,000 dollar toilets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:32 AM

24. And gifts for Twins!!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:14 PM

82. I think they should look at

Both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:57 PM

101. Senator Joe Biden voted "Yes" in 1983 to a SS age increase...

certainly didn't put him out of a job.

1983 Amendment Vote
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1983.html

Lots of others in that vote tally who didn't lose their jobs.

It's a club, of which none of us are members, and I feel a royal fucking coming on. Hope I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:06 AM

9. Fine for whom?

Something I read earlier this morning:

"The next media pundit who calls for shared sacrifice must describe in detail just what he or she is prepared to give up.

And it has to be a real sacrifice.

The idea that Thomas Friedman might see his federal tax rate go up a few percentage points does not equate with a sanitation worker or Walmart clerk having to clock in for another four years before they can claim Social Security. David Brooks, say, losing a favorite deduction isn’t the same as a retired waitress in her 80s seeing her Medicare slashed.

Right now, “shared sacrifice” means that many wealthy, powerful people share the opinion that the rest of us should sacrifice."

-from a Kevin Baker column in the NY Observer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:01 PM

72. +++++++

Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:17 AM

11. She's wrong, and

Conrad is irrelevant on this issue because it will not be decided before the next Congress.

Here is Van Hollen on the Ed Show, starts at 4:25:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/ns/msnbc-the_ed_show/#49862348

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:57 AM

35. Thanks, ProSense! Van Hollen is against tinkering on Social Security

and he's clearly stated it in the clip.

I hope other DUers are paying attention. Kent Conrad is a friggin Republican, so of course he'd want to mess with social security, but it's pretty solvent just as long as Congress (all Republicans, some DINOs) keep their greedy paws out of the pot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:12 PM

126. And the catapults have arrived!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:18 AM

12. MHP has loads of money, of course it would be fine for her. But I am surprised to

hear she said that because of the life expectancy stats. African American men are currently at 67.5 years expectancy. And she supports raising the age to 67? Seriously? Of course, she a woman and her expectancy is over 70, enhanced by her vast wealth and golden health care. So again, perfectly fine for her. Why should she give a shit about anybody else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:19 AM

13. I have listened to MHP in the past,

and I do not believe she said this without a qualifier to end the sentence. I did not hear it so I am only guessing. If I get an email response from her I will post it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:31 AM

23. Her qualifier was...

because we're all living longer. Of course we know that isn't true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:37 AM

27. And even if we were living longer, we aren't working longer.

If you can even find a job in your sixties that you are physically able to do, it won't have healthcare. Until there is a single payer health care system raising the age limit is a terrible and deadly idea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:17 PM

84. Hopefully people will

Already be working a job going into their 60's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #84)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:16 PM

117. In what world are companies keeping employees into their sixties.

Look around, workers in their 50s are being pushed out of jobs every day. And what about work that requires people to life of be on their feet all day. Not everyone sits behind a desk all day or has an employer who keeps them on the job when then can't compete with younger and stronger workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #117)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:30 PM

121. ATC drivetrain. Okc, ok.

We got a whole bunch of 50 and 60 something's working every day. Some are even pass retirement age. Their reason for still being at work I can't say. But they are there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #121)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:00 PM

146. I just had a friend pushed out of a bond rating agency afer 25 yrs. New young boss just swept..

through and restaffed. Now at 59 there are no jobs out there for her at all. Cobra lasts for 18 months but the cost of living here is about 4 or 5 times maximum unemployment benefits.

Finding a job at 50 plus that pays enough to live on in this area is close to impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #146)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:09 PM

152. So what is she going to do. N/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #152)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:07 PM

172. She doesn't know. I spent the better part of the morning talking to her.

She was planning for retirement but does not have enough savings yet and S.S. is a ways off. Right now she is talking about living with her brother in Texas but she says she might have a better chance of getting a job up here to keep paying payroll taxes and building the amount of S.S. she will receives.

I am thinking of asking if she would like to come stay at my cottage with me and help me with my little business. It might take awhile to build up enough business to support her.

I make a lot of sacrifices to be self employed. Chances are I will never be able to retire. However...no one can let me go for being too old or too expensive to keep on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:20 AM

14. OK

"When you see anyone on the Democratic side pushing for these devastating cuts for the American people, please let me know..."

Obama Offered To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age As Part Of Grand Debt Deal

July 11, 2011

WASHINGTON -- In his press conference on Monday morning, President Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that he was willing to tackle some sacred cows as part of a larger package to raise the debt ceiling. Just how sacred, however, may surprise political observers.

According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:23 AM

18. Yeah, but the was BEFORE his landslide re-election

(if it's even true)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sedona (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:59 PM

145. You want another, more recent quote. Just be patient. He'll get to it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:25 AM

19. "According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations"

It's a tie!

Seriously, there are some issues with this report: It's based on anonymous sources and it's from 2011.

The media proved during this election cycle that they will say anything to drive the debate to the right and create the perception that everyone is leaning right.

The election proved the media wrong.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:42 AM

31. If it's a year old it doesnt' count?

Just throw it out when it gets stale. Like old bread, LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:28 PM

48. It's a year old and from anonymous sources

"Just throw it out when it gets stale. Like old bread, LOL."

Yes, because it's likely bogus. A whole year has gone by and this still hasn't been confirmed by an actual quote from the President.

His more recent statements also contradict the claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #48)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:33 PM

122. And it has never been denied by the President either.

Although it has been widely discussed in the media. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #122)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:29 PM

137. So?

Does Obama have to specifically deny any rumor put out there by anonymous sources? Was he ever specifically asked about this rumor? If not - why would you expect him to deny something that has no basis outside bullshit political rumormongering?

Hey! There's also anonymous sources out there that said Obama had a gay affair and killed his gay lover ... should he deny that publicly too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #137)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:24 PM

167. I'll take a pass on your silly red herring.

But yes, I expect Obama to deny these reports if they are untrue. More than that I expected him, as a Democratic President, to say that he will veto any legislation that incudes cuts to Medicare or Social Security. I'm not holding by breath while waiting for that because I realize it's never going to come from this President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #167)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:41 PM

169. It's not silly...and you know it.

Give it up. Obama doesn't need to deny or refute any silly bullshit rumor spread through lying anonymous sources. He's got larger fish to fry than that shit and you know it. If he had to deny every anonymous 'source' that spoke out, that would be his whole presidency.

Just Google "Obama" & "anonymous sources" and see how many goddamn rumors are out there that you expect our President to debunk.

Hell, I'll help you out!

You've got stories about Obama being paid to come out in support of gay marriage, a bombshell fundraising scandal that will almost certainly sink his reelection odds (ha), a secret service agent committing suicide to protect Obama's reelection chances, that Obama was born in Kenya, that Michelle Obama was a jealous wife who demanded Obama stay away from actress Kerry Washington ... and that Obama had a GPA of 2.6 at Columbia.

ALL of this because of anonymous sources. So, if all these are untrue, Obama damn well better rebuke every single one ... right?

Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #169)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:10 PM

173. The hell I do.

You:

"There's also anonymous sources out there that said Obama had a gay affair and killed his gay lover ... should he deny that publicly too?"

You are not making a logical appeal to the principle of similar circumstances. You have instead presented a red herring:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html


You're not going to make your first fish stop stinking by piling more of them on top.

Anonymous sources are cited by credible news agencies such as the Huffington Post. Are you saying HuffPo is lying? This is an important issue - one infinitely more important and quite a bit more plausable than birthers' clown act. Yet Obama found the time to refute their claims, but you say he doesn't have five minutes to clear this up about his position regarding the Medicare eligibility age?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #173)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:17 PM

174. It's not a red-herring...

Just because you say it doesn't make it so...sorry, bud. Why do you get to decide which anonymous sources Obama should and shouldn't respond to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #174)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:35 PM

176. HuffPo vouched for their souces.

Is HuffPo lying or not?

I don't expect anyone to believe anything just because I say it. That is why I have tried to present a logical argument. And lucky for me, something is not automatically false just because I say it. But this isn't about me. It is not just I who is saying these things. Not by a long shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #176)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:55 PM

178. Lying? Who knows...

I wouldn't put it past the Huffington Post. The fact we're now almost to 2013 and nothing came of it probably tells me it was absolutely bunk. Whether they were lying or their sources were wrong is up for debate - however, this is why no one should universally believe anonymous sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #178)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:07 PM

180. How about Bob Woodward? Is he lying too?

White House Grand Bargain offer to Speaker Boehner Obtained by Bob Woodward

Sun Nov 11, 2012

Below are documents obtained by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that show a grand bargain proposal the White House was prepared to make in order to reach agreement with the House Republicans last year. This is how Woodward described the documents on Meet the Press this morning:

"This is a confidential document, last offer the president -- the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses." So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far."

http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter

The linked article contains the leaked document, which includes the following line item:

Alteration in the eligibility age for Medicare.

What do you think that could mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #180)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:16 PM

182. Bob Woodward? Really?

I don't trust him, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #182)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:27 PM

184. Do you think he forged the document he presented?

I don't.

How about Obama himself when he said, "It is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice (and) would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows."?

What do you think he meant by that? Do you think he meant he should have actual cows grazing on the White House lawn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #184)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:29 PM

185. I think he meant what he's meant all along...

That we need a balanced approach and yes, you can make some adjustments without radically overhauling it. None of that says "let's increase the age from 65 to 67!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #185)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:46 PM

194. The grand bargain was $2 in domestic program cuts for every $1 of revenue.

That's not balanced.

What the hell, I can't believe anything you say because you are anonymous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #194)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:11 PM

198. Pretty much. For all you know, I'm Karl Rove.

And for all I know, you're Bob Woodward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #198)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:10 PM

210. Hee hee

Thanks for the fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #48)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:36 PM

188. It hasn't been denied by him either. What is so hard for him to

simply say, as Tammy Baldwin said, as Sen. Sanders has said:

SS had zero to do with the Deficit and therefore will not be a part of any discussions on the Deficit


That is the truth, it is simple, it has not been said by the President, and the question is 'why'?

It is more what people DON'T say than what they do that is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:26 AM

21. I'll have to look for this video clip

This is just the kind of statement that needs to be included. I just saw another thread where Lieberman is pushing for the increase in eligibility age as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021831135

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:00 PM

147. "Lieberman is pushing for the increase in eligibility age." That's a surprise.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:21 AM

15. If Obamacare develops properly, and everyone is covered, the Medicare kick-in won't be as critical.

The Social Security retirement date is another story. Working people should not have to delay benefits until 70, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:03 PM

36. +1000

My husband is 60, so he will have to by into Obamacare for a few years before Medicare kicks in. I've looked into costs, and as much as I can figure out, the premiums will be very close. In fact Obamacare may cover more so a supplemental may not be necessary.
Now, this is because we fall into the subsidized category because of his wage level, so others may have higher premiums, but for us it will be great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:55 PM

100. Obamacare is total and complete disaster for people aged 50-64

Paying three times as much for shitty useless Bronze level coverage is going to kill people. They will be forced to give the money they might otherwise have used for doctor visits to insurance companies and get nothing back unless they get catastrophically ill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #100)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:57 PM

114. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #100)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:39 PM

141. Not that I disagree...

But if we could get more young people see their primary care provider on a regular basis, then maybe we could manage conditions and avoid treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #100)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:02 PM

149. Forced to give money to insurance companies? Maybe that trickle-down theory will work this time.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #100)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:51 PM

165. In a society, everyone has to give up something.

Obamacare is set up to make routine physicals free and routine care cost less. In addition, filling prescriptions will cost less. I live in the only state that has medical care for all. I have stood in line behind seniors that are having scripts filled, they aren't complaining and seems to be content.

Obamacare is designed to keep people healthy. During it's early phase, the people that will IN FACT bear the brunt of making the system work are young people of 45 or younger. But as those people age, their better health will reduce costs for them as they age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #165)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:56 AM

218. Yes, and people not old enough for Medicare have to give up all discretionary income.

That keeping people healthy keeps prices down is delusional. Prevention saves lives, but COSTS money. A century of very successful prevention is exactly why we have so many old people around with their higher health care costs.

People paying THREE TIMES AS MUCH for nearly useless Bronze level coverage are the ones who are sacrificing, not the ones who pay 1/3 less for the same thign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #165)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:01 AM

219. Oh, so the plan is "Don't get sick"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:23 AM

17. Ever notice it is never people with physically demanding jobs who say that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:40 AM

30. Why YES!

I notice that. Big Ed talks about that too. He needs to talk to the latest media sellout in his cohort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:13 PM

203. Bingo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:47 PM

209. Yep. Thinking the exact same thing here. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:26 AM

22. corporate media eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:33 AM

25. She has hers so screw the rest of us that don't.

This is not perfectly fine with me. There's a lot of people out there who this isn't perfectly fine with. It ticks me off she is cool with this like it's no big deal. It is a big deal and will hurt a lot of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:37 AM

26. What's her phucking contact? That's MY life she's talking about there, grrrrrrr.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:15 PM

42. You can go to msnbc.com and get onto her web page. I'm sure there is a place to contact her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:33 PM

50. Will do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:37 AM

28. But people on DU keep telling us that this isn't happening in our party.


Gosh, Wally who should I believe?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:04 PM

150. Some have. But not all people on DU.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:38 AM

29. Was she just supporting Obama's position?

President Obama Calls for Cutting Social Security by 3 Percent, Raising Normal Retirement Age in Acceptance Speech

The media and "fact checkers" seem to have missed it, but President Obama implicitly called for cutting Social Security by 3 percent and phasing in an increase in the normal retirement age to 69 when he again endorsed the deficit reduction plan put forward by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of his deficit commission.

The reduction in benefits is the result of their proposal to reduce the size of the annual cost of living adjustment by 0.3 percentage points by using a different price index. After 10 years this would imply a reduction in benefits of 3 percent, after 20 years the reduction would be 6 percent, and after 30 years the reduction would be 9 percent. If the average beneficiary lives long enough to collect benefits for 20 years, the average reduction in benefits would be approximately 3 percent.

Since Social Security is enormously important to retirees and near retirees, the media should have called attention to this part of President Obama's speech. It is likely that many of those listening did not realize that his deficit reduction plan called for these cuts.

11-7-12

http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/president-obama-calls-for-cutting-sociail-security-by-3-percent-raising-normal-retirement-age-in-acceptance-speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upi402 (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:52 AM

32. Doesn't sound too extreme, to be honest...

 

But I don't support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:55 AM

34. Obama supporting making us work to 69 and cutting it 3% not extreme?

In the face of obscene greed and abuse by the top 1% you think it's reasonable to screw the rest of us out of the deal we've paid into all out lives?????????????

I can't say what I think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upi402 (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:11 PM

39. This is nonsense

The media and "fact checkers" seem to have missed it, but President Obama implicitly called for cutting Social Security by 3 percent and phasing in an increase in the normal retirement age to 69 when he again endorsed the deficit reduction plan put forward by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of his deficit commission.

President Obama didn't endorse Bowles-Simpson. The proposal was policy soup. There are things in it, like increasing the cap, that appeal to some, but the overall proposal was voted down because there was a lot wrong in it.

Here is the President's actual position:

President Obama: ‘Medicare and Social Security Are Not Handouts’

Speaking by sattelite at the AARP's annual conference on Friday, President Obama took a subtle jab at Mitt Romney's claim that 47 percent of Americans were "victims" who saw themselves as "entitled" to food, housing, and health care, among other things.

"There's been a lot of talk about Medicare and Social Security in this campaign, as there should be," Obama said. "And these are bedrock commitments that Americas makes to its seniors, and I consider those commitments unshakable. But, given the conversations that have been out there in the political arena lately, I want to emphasize, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You've paid into these programs your whole lives. You've earned them."

Obama suggested that Social Security's finances could be "put on more stable footing" in part by raising the cap on taxable income. He dismissed as flatly "not true attacks from Romney on $716 billion in Medicare savings included in the Affordable Care Act (and Paul Ryan's budgets), saying that it "strengthened" the program.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/president-obama-medicare-social-security-are-not-handouts

From the President's DNC speech:

<...>

Now, I’m still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. I want to get this done, and we can get it done. But when Governor Romney and his friends in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficits by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy, well, what did Bill Clinton call it -- you do the arithmetic. (Applause.) You do the math. (Applause.)

I refuse to go along with that and as long as I’m President, I never will. (Applause.) I refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut. (Applause.)

I refuse to ask students to pay more for college, or kick children out of Head Start programs, or eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor and elderly or disabled -- all so those with the most can pay less. I’m not going along with that. (Applause.)

And I will never -- I will never -- turn Medicare into a voucher. (Applause.) No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity that they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care -- not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. (Applause.)

And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-democratic-national-convention


How President Obama and Mitt Romney compare on preserving Social Security for America’s seniors

October 5, 2012

In the first debate, Mitt Romney sacrificed the facts in order to mislead and confuse voters about where he stands on important issues to the middle class. On one issue—Social Security—it’s worth clarifying where President Obama and Governor Romney agree and where they disagree. Both President Obama and Mitt Romney know that the program is solvent for more than two decades and that there’s a need for gradual reforms to the benefits that millions of seniors have worked for, paid for, and earned. But that’s where their agreement ends.

While President Obama is committed to keeping the promise of guaranteed Social Security benefits for current and future generations, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have supported plans to privatize the program, and have put forward a plan that would slash benefits for current workers. Here are the key differences between the President’s and Romney-Ryan’s approach to Social Security:

Obama-Biden

The President knows that guaranteed Social Security benefits are not handouts, but a bedrock of the commitment to retirement security America makes to our seniors. He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced, and he will not accept any approach that slashes benefits for future generations. President Obama stands firmly opposed to privatizing Social Security—the future security of hard-working Americans should not be dependent on the fluctuations of the stock market. That is why the President has called on Congress to develop a bipartisan plan that follows these principles:

  • Any reform should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency.

  • The administration will oppose any measures that privatize or weaken the Social Security system.

  • While all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.

  • No current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced.

  • Reforms should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors.

  • Reform should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.
Romney-Ryan

Mitt Romney is taking a starkly different approach to Social Security—he refuses to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, and is proposing to close Social Security shortfalls through benefit cuts alone. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and former OMB director Peter Orszag noted, his plan insists that any reform prohibit additional revenue, and thus relies on “excessive benefit cuts that would undermine financial security for future retirees.” Analysis of a similar plan showed that typical workers in their forties would lose $2,400 a year, and workers in their twenties would lose $4,700 a year in future benefits. Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan was even the architect of a privatization plan that would have left seniors’ benefits devastated by the 2008 financial crisis.

The choice is clear: President Obama will never privatize Social Security or undermine retirement security for middle-class Americans. The same cannot be said for Romney.

http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/how-president-obama-and-mitt-romney-compare-on-preserving-social-security-f

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:48 PM

65. Social Security doesn't need ANY kind of reform.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to stir up fears about the deficit/debt and promote reductions in spending including cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

The President is under a lot of pressure and has to work with the rest of Washington. I'm glad people are being noisy about their opposition to changing Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:50 PM

66. He called Reid & Pelosi to get them to take Boehner's final offer

Boehner said it was too late to open it all up again. Reid & Pelosi agreed to TRY to support Obama's taking Boehner's final deal.

Discount what he says in speeches to interest groups. He's in politics.

You should read this, even if it hurts a bit;
http://americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security-and-medicare-during-failed-grand-bargain-talks.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upi402 (Reply #66)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:10 PM

76. "Reid & Pelosi agreed to TRY to support Obama's taking Boehner's final deal."

From the WaPo article linked:

Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. His message: I’ll take your last offer.

“Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.

The following night, Obama delivered a prime-time address from the East Room to update Americans on the status of the talks. He left no doubt about whom he intended to blame for the failure of the grand bargain.

The only reason a deal is not on its way to becoming law, he said, “is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach — a cuts-only approach — an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.”

Wait, so it was Boehner's offer, not the President's?

These stories are speculative, anonymous bullshit. Here's another from the same period.

The Republican version of reality goes, briefly, like this: Boehner and Obama shook hands on a far-reaching deal to rewrite the tax code, roll back the cost of entitlements and slash deficits. But then Obama, reacting to pressure from Democrats in Congress, panicked at the last minute and suddenly demanded that Republicans accede to hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue. A frustrated Boehner no longer believed he could trust the president’s word, and he walked away. Obama moved the goal posts, is the Republican mantra.

<...>

On entitlements too they had moved closer to a final deal. The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade. And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015. (The White House had rejected Boehner’s bid to raise the retirement age.) This wasn’t quite enough for Boehner, nor was it as extensive as what the Gang of Six had proposed. But the speaker’s team didn’t consider the differences to be insurmountable, assuming the two sides could also settle on a revenue number.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html

If the article is to be believed and taken at face value in its entirety, it appears the President rejected a proposal to raise the Social Security age.

I said in another thread, these discussions aren't so much about demanding the President protect Social Security as much as they are attempts to prove that he has no intention of doing so. That is why what he says will not matter to those pushing this angle. They'll simply parse his words and claim he still intends to cut the program. It will always be wait-and-see, just as it was during the President's first term.

Given that this would have ruined the President (Republicans would have had a field day), either Boehner is a fool or the President is shrewd.

Still, why not focus on what the President is saying now instead of harping on year-old anonymous reports?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #76)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:25 PM

87. We need to hold Obama's feet to the fire so he doesn't betray us again

That's why.

Forget what Obama SAYS in speeches. He is a politician. He is fallible. For my money, I'd pay attention to what he pressures our leaders to push. That speaks more truth than political speeches, irl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upi402 (Reply #87)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:32 PM

90. How on earth

We need to hold Obama's feet to the fire so he doesn't betray us again

That's why.

Forget what Obama SAYS in speeches. He is a politician. He is fallible....

...are you going to hold his "feet to the fire" if you're going to ignore what he says?

It seems you're basically advocating the use of baseless speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upi402 (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:16 PM

43. Holy Crap

I missed his acceptance speech. I know he's itching to get this done, but wow, to mention it on the same night of election is stunning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upi402 (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:43 PM

95. "Normal retirement age" for me is 67... the thought of 69 is mind-boggling.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/nra.html

What is being tossed around as far as "62" being the age one can first receive (greatly reduced) benefits?

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

Fuck it. I'll retire at 62 (if still an option), and become even less of a consumer than I am now. And I won't be alone. That'll be good for the consumer-driven economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:54 AM

33. I'm perfectly fine with never watching her show again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:04 PM

37. Did anyone write to her to let her know how her remarks came across?

They're usually pretty responsive if they get enough people upset.

She is an idiot if she said this, I'm disappointed, that's near Paul Ryan territory!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:11 PM

38. Dear Melissa: NO, it's not.

Does this 1%er even have a CLUE how much medical insurance premiums are for people over 65??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:14 PM

40. I say it's perfectly fine for her to go fuck herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:15 PM

41. I want to hear the whole story...not a sound bite. Those complaining probably don't even know what

was said. This is probably another instance of something being taken out of context. If the medicare age is raised, there must be something else available in its place. Wake up, people. This was probably put out be a rw mole who's trying to get the dems to act like rethugs. Don't buy into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to judesedit (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:18 PM

44. Are you accusing me of being a right wing mole?

That would be one hell of an accomplishment to get by for nearly 12 years on this site and not be discovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to judesedit (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:24 PM

86. Thank you for lending reason to

yet another "chicken little" moment. What in hell do people think Obama is, a fool? If the age is raised, you can believe Obama will touch all the bases. You don't achieve greatness through stupid lies and betrayal. He never lied to us; he said there's got to be sacrifice everywhere, and his very inclusion of unions and progressive organizing groups was done specifically to get their help in setting critical priorities.

Everybody wants to jump the gun, anticipating what the president is thinking and what he's going to do. Nobody knows. The only thing we do know is that his actions will be guided by principles shaped by his years as a community organizer.

Questioning Obama's trustworthiness from a leftist perspective is no less damaging than all the slanderous things rightwingers have been spitting for years. Don't be a tool of the crazies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appacom (Reply #86)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:11 PM

125. !



Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. It runs right through DU too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to judesedit (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:49 PM

144. Easy enough. Provide the context you think changes things.


Otherwise, you're the one spouting misinformed propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:24 PM

46. add Michael Tomasky to your list

here he is telling us not to freak out when they propose cutting Medicare: title of column "Liberals hold your fire"


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/michael-tomasky-on-how-liberals-need-to-hold-their-anti-obama-fire.html

Add to this the knowledge that it is Obama’s inclination, by temperament and instinct, to do a deal. And people who are inclined toward wanting to do deals will give up things that people who are not so inclined won’t. Last year, in the deal with John Boehner that didn’t hold, he floated $360 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts. White House ally Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland—no Blue Dog he, by a long shot—yesterday floated the possibility of raising the Medicare eligibility age. So. What happens if Obama puts something like that on the table?

Before liberals rush to the barricades chanting “ˇno pasaran!” I would urge everyone to take a breath and think back to exactly this time four years ago. Every pundit in town was saying the Republicans were in disarray. Obama was riding high. It was going to be a glorious four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:36 PM

53. ROFL...Van Hollen isn't a Blue Dog?

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. The spin is ON!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:25 PM

47. Contact Address

Write her...it felt good.

http://melissaharrisperry.com/contact.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:32 PM

91. Done.

 

I included a link to this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:24 PM

134. Done! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:28 PM

49. Raising the SS age throws our workforce out of whack

We have the oldest people working and the young people with young families are having a hard time finding a good job with benefits. At my place of work we have at least half our workforce over the age of 65. We have not hired anyone in 6 years.

At our place of work you need a masters degree to be hired on staff. When I graduated grad school 21 years ago I "paid my dues" and worked 1 year part time and then got hired full time. Now grad students are working up to 7 years part time, no benefits, no vac or sick days etc. How can you raise a family?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trixie (Reply #49)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:33 PM

139. How is that the responsibility of the workers over 65? None of that should be any factor in their


employment decisions.

You do know that for every year past the retirement age that you don't take SS benefits you increase them by 8%. It's a very smart decision to work a few years past the retirement age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trixie (Reply #49)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:19 PM

157. Unfortunately your theory isn't supported by current research

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/14/study-baby-boomers-are-not-stealing-younger-workers-jobs

There isn't some fixed and finite number of jobs. We currently have a job shortage, but that's not something that can simply be fixed by moving some people to small fixed income levels ie Social Security.

If older workers keep their jobs, they will have additional discretionary income which unless they are exceedingly wealthy will probably be spent which in turn stimulates the economy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:36 PM

52. Since I didn't hear it for myself...

It's not that I don't believe that you heard it, but it happens all the time that when posters report what they heard on TV they sometimes mishear or misconstrue. I've learned that unless I hear it or see it written with a byline, I tend to take a wait and see attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #52)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:11 PM

77. I agree. I'll wait to see what she said in context before I take this too seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:36 PM

54. when

rachel, ed, sharpton, bashir and odonnell say it, then we're fucked. One person does not a plurality make. As far as ms. perry is concerned, she bears watching. Might be an undercover 'third wayer'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:39 PM

56. I knew she was a sell-out when...

she supported the Keystone Pipeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #56)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:43 PM

61. mmmmm

didn't know that. Undercover blue dog?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:59 PM

102. Indeed.

This is not the first time she's expressed questionable opinions. It'll be interesting to see what line politicians and other journalists take in coming weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:40 PM

57. What a wonderful way to...

... breath life back into the Republican Party. Think we got our asses kicked in 2010?

That was barely a warmup compared to what will happen in '14.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:40 PM

58. Thank you for your efforts. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:43 PM

59. Of course. We should raise the age to 110 then we would have a

1.5 trillion dollar surplus to spend again. Let's invade Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:44 PM

63. Does anyone.... anyone at all... talk about

putting the money they stole from SS back in the "lock box"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:53 PM

67. I don't care for this self-aggrandizing showoff and this is

 

just one more reason to sustain that opinion. We definitely seemed to be enamored of anti-heroes. I never could figure it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:53 PM

68. So nice you can have income from 2 or 3 sources and tell the most vulnerable to fuck off.


Millions more people will see early death, tragedy, utter poverty from such a change, while paying rich people to make sure they aren't hurt.

So if people like this are going to visit death and pain on others, they better get ready. 'Cause they are making enemies of people who will have nothing left to lose.

Really stupid.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:54 PM

69. Fuck you, Melissa. How DARE you say that!!!! It's not fine. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:57 PM

70. Thank-you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:00 PM

71. Mellissa Harris Perry can kiss my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:08 PM

74. Tavis Smiley & Cornel West Do not like her at all...............

 

and they are not very fond of MSNBC in general.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/9/tavis_smiley_cornel_west_on_the

I am gettin ready to block MSNBC like I have everything I consider crap blocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #74)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:51 PM

97. Nope, they don't and in my opinion, they have good reason....

Folks will continue believing that the hosts at MSNBC is the best freaking thing since sliced bread. I'm talking about ALL OF THEM. Melissa, Ed, Al and yes even Rachel. Well, one has the courage to tell the truth on many occasions and anger both sides of the electorate, and that is Chris Matthews but even he's a part of the 1% club....to be completely honest.

As for Tavis Smiley well, he was on MSNBC on election night I'm sure (can't find the video). Not sure if he was there to provide a voice of reason or to just receive a "talking head" fee but either way, he was there.

Dr. Cornel West summed up quite nicely what the "African-American" crew at MSNBC is to do. Or in other words, why their TRUE job is....

"CORNEL WEST: And Brother Tavis is being very kind, because he’s right. I love Brother Mike Dyson, too, but we’re living in a society where everybody is up for sale. Everything is up for sale. And he and Brother Sharpton and Sister Melissa and others, they have sold their souls for a mess of Obama pottage. And we invite them back to the black prophetic tradition after Obama leaves. But at the moment, they want insider access, and they want to tell those kind of lies. They want to turn their back to poor and working people."


http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/9/tavis_smiley_cornel_west_on_the


Raising the Medicare age to 67 or 70, how about 75 while we're at it. This was probably the plan all along. Politics is directly about planning ones' future plots or "talking points". Specifically, paid and brought media resources (i.e. MHP, AL, ED & Rachel) start the "slow talk" of throwing out "teasers" on why raising Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70 or above.

To do this, they add "code words" like "fiscal cliff", "time clock", "Spending Cuts", "financial disaster" or "middle class tax hikes" in with explaining why its a MUST to raise the retirement age for SSN and Medicare.

The day I'm STILL waiting on is when folks stop "hero worshiping" media personalities telling them HOW TO THINK,follow INDEPENDENT MEDIA who don't kiss ass-ets in D.C. to collect a paycheck and investigate issues impacting their financial livelihoods, for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LovingA2andMI (Reply #97)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:03 AM

224. I love democracynow for actual news coverage.

Good recommendation and we do have to stay awake and do our own thinking. Being a fan isn't enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:08 PM

75. MHP is wrong.

The best thing for the health of the American people and the economy would be to have Medicare for all and de-couple health care from employment (and lowering SS retirement age).

The MSM (even Rachel) are propogandists for neo-liberalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #75)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:43 PM

94. definitely separate Health Care from Employment. This Must Happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:12 PM

78. INDEX EVERYTHING!. raise it for the 2% they can get it at 90.

for the lower class it should be 50.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:12 PM

79. Lol there is nothing wrong

With raising the age limit. People are living longer so it makes sense to raise the age requirement. I'm pretty sure they will put in steps for people that might have retire earlier then expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #79)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:46 PM

108. LOL, yes, nothing to see here

Let's ask all black men to work beyond their average life expectancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #108)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:19 PM

120. Black male here. I have no fear of

A higher age requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #120)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:31 PM

212. Statistically, you are unlikely to live that long.

Raising the age limit is essentially transferring money from people who die young (working class black men) to people who don't (wealthy white women).

Black men can expect to live to 67.5. White women can expect to live to 80.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/321004

I'm not surprised to hear her say this, because she is part of the demographic most likely to benefit from the change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #79)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:55 PM

113. Wrong. Not all people.

Life Expectancy of the Living Dead
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/life-expectancy-of-the-living-dead/

Life, Death and Deficits
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/life-death-and-deficits.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

"Now, life expectancy at age 65 has risen, too. But the rise has been very uneven since the 1970s, with only the relatively affluent and well-educated seeing large gains. Bear in mind, too, that the full retirement age has already gone up to 66 and is scheduled to rise to 67 under current law.

This means that any further rise in the retirement age would be a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who aren’t living much longer, and who, in many cases, have jobs requiring physical effort that’s difficult even for healthy seniors. And these are precisely the people who depend most on Social Security."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #113)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:16 PM

118. Understood, but in your post it says

That the better educated are living longer. Shouldn't we try getting everyone better educated instead of ignoring the on coming train.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #118)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:38 PM

124. Everyone has something to contribute, regardless of education level.

I'm all for education, but not everyone is cut out to be a Ph.D.-level geneticist. There will always be a need for folks who provide labor that doesn't require a lot of education. They should be treated with respect, paid a living wage with full benefits, and not have their social safety net fucked with.

Don't be duped by the "incoming train" nonsense. Hell, I've ridden in cabs with drivers who are high school dropouts and they clearly see through the bullshit. Why don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #124)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:18 PM

156. So you're saying that mhp has been

Duped. I would roll with almost anything she says much like I would with rmaddows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #156)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:35 PM

163. Melissa Harris-Perry doesn't impress me.

And I've tuned out the theater known as Corporate Media for years, including MSNBC. Too little substance, too much focus on personality. I want FACTS, not Infotainment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #156)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:13 AM

217. I think she hasn't seen this through the eyes of anyone with a physically demanding job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #118)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:22 AM

222. Brilliant! If everyone has a PhD, motel toilets will never need to be scrubbed out again! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #79)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:15 PM

128. It's a poorly thought out idea

Medicare is more efficient than the alternatives, so that kind of cost shifting isn't saving people money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #128)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:13 PM

154. You don't think any of those

Big brains in dc didn'tthink of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #154)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:28 PM

160. The great big brains in DC

...are the same great big brains that ignored the growing housing bubble that eventually collapsed and ruined the economy. These are the same big brains that cheered on the European austerity program that has resulted in mass unemployment and worsening debt to GDP ratios. Nobody should care what they're thinking and why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:11 AM

216. May I ask what sort of work you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:15 AM

221. Bullshit. Life expectancies are decreasing for lower income people.

That of black men is 67.5 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:12 PM

80. Was it the clip where she was talking about the fiscal cliff:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46979745/#49866276

I'm trying to find the quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to question everything (Reply #81)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:53 PM

111. Paul Krugman is right.

As usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Oilwellian (Reply #83)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:27 PM

88. Thanks, this

isn't advocating a position. She appeared to be presenting what each side wants in the negotiation to make a point about Norquist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:28 PM

89. I didn't hear her say what you quoted her as saying in your unedited OP

From your unedited original post: >>>Mellissa Harris Perry Just Said: "It's Perfectly Fine to Raise the Medicare Eligibility Age<<<

Whats up with that?

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #89)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:52 PM

98. Melissa Harris Perry: "If we look at Social Security for example...

it seems like there's two easy solutions for both sides. If Democrats gave a little room and said alright, we're going to raise the retirement age basically, a couple of years seems reasonable with new life expectancies."

Yes, even when you know the average life expectancy for a black man is 67.5, it's reasonable for him to work til he's 69.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #98)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:20 PM

105. Highlight the passage where Melissa Harris Perry says:

... "It's Perfectly Fine to Raise the Medicare Eligibility Age", if you don't mind.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #105)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:52 PM

110. I amended the quote once the video was available

"If we look at Social Security for example, it seems like there's two easy solutions for both sides. If Democrats gave a little room and said alright, we're going to raise the retirement age basically, a couple of years seems reasonable with new life expectancies."

Do you think that's better than the original?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #98)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:18 PM

119. Is that stat right?

Good heavens.

I'd say it would be reasonable to let it go up with life expectancy, but not if your statistic is true. Or at least, not up from where it is now until that's equal to white men or at least a few years beyond the retirement age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #119)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:20 PM

132. You have a good heart.

But differences in life expectancy among various groups is only one reason it's a bad idea. Medicare is more cost effective than the alternatives, so having 65-66 year olds on various other forms of coverage doesn't save any money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:33 PM

92. Well, forcing seniors to work until they are seventy-two is one of those

Third Way positions. There was a postal worker on one of the radio shows yesterday, who has plantar warts on her feet and rotator cuff issues from carrying heavy bags of mail. She's in her early sixties if I remember correctly or anyway at an age where she is hanging in there until she can retire at 65. She wondered how she was going to work until she was in her seventies. I mean some of us can still work at jobs that aren't that physically demanding, but most of us can't. I think it's criminal for these democrats to even think that way. I wish I remembered more but I'm sure you can find a lot of stories like this out there. Anyway, it's one of the things they are trying to ram down our throats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #92)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:38 PM

93. I couldn't agree more.

And I plan to let every elected official I can contact know just that. It makes me absolutely furious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #92)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:54 PM

99. And that's why we better be shouting back, right NOW n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:17 PM

104. Here:

Democrats stiffen spine against trimming benefits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021839199

This is closer to reality for Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:52 PM

109. That's easy to say when you spend your life behind a desk.

Me thinks Melissa needs to get out and spend a few weeks doing manual labor before she spouts that kind of crap. How about it, Ms. Harris-Perry? You willing to go be a nurse's aid or a nurse, and move patients around for a month or two? Or, an archaeologist, who spends her day shoveling dirt? Or, you could scrub floors or lay carpet day in and day out. Then you can get back to us about how great an idea it would be to do that kind of thing until you're 67.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:54 PM

112. Time to Wake the Fuck UP.

Lot's of people have been living in Dreamyland with President Dreamboat. They all need to snap out of it today, this moment. MHP is getting her marching orders straight from the WH spin machine. When you hear her cooing about the reasonableness of cutting the safety net, you can no longer have any doubts about the machine being in motion or where it wants to go. Lots of you have been wrong and you have a lot of making up to do, and not much time to do it.

If you can FINALLY let go of the absolutely baseless identification with this Republican in a Donkeysuit, and motivate your asses down to Washington DC to put the fear into your Congressional Reps and Senators, you MIGHT just have a chance at stopping this epic screwjob. MAYBE. You've wasted a lot of time and initiative, lolling around in dreamland spinning fantasies about the Great Obama and how he's on your side. He's on HIS side. He's never been anywhere else. He and his lovely family have no intention of sharing your fate. He wants to be remembered as a figure that "transcended" party and began the breakdown of party lines in this country. The only way he can do that is to secure the breakdown of a previously non-negotiable position of the Democratic Party: the sanctity of the social safety net programs. This will usher in a new era of bipartisan consensus in this country and UTTER FUCKING MISERY for the vast majority of its people.

Let me warn you one more time: ONCE these programs go onto the table for cuts THEY WILL NEVER COME OFF THE TABLE. Every four or eight years or so, the question won't be should we regard Social Security and Medicare as untouchable, inviolable parts of the social contract, but rather BY HOW MUCH SHOULD WE CUT THEM?

You lot are deciding the shape of that future RIGHT NOW. The only way this disaster could ever go forward is if a Democratic President like Obama initiates it. And the only way he could succeed at this historic grand betrayal is if you, his loyal base of supporters ALLOW HIM TO DO IT.

So far, you have been the perfect Good Germans enabling him to screw you over at will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #112)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:14 PM

116. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #112)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:36 PM

123. Indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #112)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:05 AM

220. Oh, good fucking luck on that one. The people you address are defending this shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #112)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:16 AM

225. Well said...Thank You!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:01 PM

115. "Reasonable", IF case-by-case guidelines are applied AND a LOWERING of the age

for some people.

People with dangerous/"hard" jobs should see 55 as their age to retire....

people like..waitresses/laborers/hairdressers/cooks/sales-floor workers/roofers/coal miners/etc

people who sit at a desk and type. maybe a later age would be fine (exceptions for people with obvious medical issues such as visual problems)

people who are lucky enough to have a pension plan that allows them to retire at an age + years worked combination should also be able to take early (reduced compensation) SS ..

Medicare should also be a buy-in option for people 50-64 so they could afford to retire earlier and open up opportunities for the younger ones who are not-so-patiently waiting for them to move aside. Many would love to retire, but cannot afford the medical insurance costs for 14 + years until medicare kicks in for them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #115)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:15 PM

127. Not even then.

We don't need more people in the labor force and need less and less as we move into the future all more people does is reduce life time wages for most people and the program gets worse off.

Then all this talk of the ease of a desk job till 70 is batshit crazy as well, even if bodies are better preserved, the minds tend to be less sharp, health issues mount, and employers are less inclined to hire and retain.
There isn't a single 60 year old in my job, none even in management. There are very few 50 year olds and at 40, I'm an old dog, older or the same age as management.
I'm not going to be able to keep up the pace at 60 if my job is still even around and by 70, I'll be long gone wishing Walmart still needed greeters no matter how much I want to keep doing it, which I won't because I'll be burnt out and far too slow to be an asset.

No one is talking a mandatory work life expiration date here, if you are in demand and able then rock on but it is folly to pretend that such will be the average condition for workers.

It foolish, cruel, and soulless along with being counter productive to the asserted aim, why do you want to expand on a glut of workers? What in the world is in it for you? Trying to reduce labor costs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #127)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:21 PM

133. So, we euthanize the "expendables"?



There are two choices:

provide meaningful work for all who want/need it (no matter their age) and pay them a living wage

pay to support the non-workers.

we cannot "wish away" the "unproductive".


.............................................................................................................

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:10 PM

Star Member SoCalDem (98,363 posts)


It all boils down to : Do we take care of "them" or do we just kill them?

Inside EVERY society you will find:

people who seem to enjoy work, and who willingly look for more to do as they finish tasks

people who work because they fear reprisal if they do not, and who do as little as possible

people who seem capable, but whose personal reasons prevent them from doing much work

young who cannot work (and should not be expected to)

very old who cannot work (and should not be expected to)

handicapped who cannot do much or any work

Regardless of the category, these people ARE in the society. They all have the same basic needs...food.... shelter.... water.... companionship... education...health care... a decent life

We ALL need to realize that these people, in varying percentages, have always been with us, and always will be.

The only variable is in how we "deal" with them.

We can grow up, and figure out that "some" people will need assistance. and yes, occasionally a person/ people "might" take more than we think they should, or may be totally "undeserving" of any help.


Or we accept the fact that we (as a society) have no use for these people, and we might as well "get rid of 'them' altogether." Some might say we are already wandering down that path to some degree. We lock up millions of people who turned to crime. We warehouse old sick people in places we would never want to be.. We accept the malnourishment of poor children we will never meet. We under educate millions of children.

We have the "don't-give-a-crap" part down pat.. Now we are just dithering over how it will play out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #133)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:24 PM

231. I have not a clue of where that came from, it would seem a poor reading of my post to

make any such assertion that I was calling for the Soylent factory when I'm pointing out that need for labor flat isn't there and cannot reasonably be expected in the future.

The current economic system isn't sustainable. Eventually, there will be very minimal need for labor, certainly not full time with living wages. There is no reasonable model. Instead, workers and former workers will have to share the fruits of productivity instead of piling up wealth for a few. Perfectly healthy and willing folks with in demand skills will work what we think of as part time.

Raising the age has no value, it just adds to a labor pool that cannot absorb those folks.

We won't be transitioning to this in one swoop but an orderly start would be lowering the retirement age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:15 PM

129. Well, if they keep raising it no need to worry, everyone will be dead! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:33 PM

138. "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." Voltaire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:42 PM

142. ++ Bookmarked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:47 PM

143. Sounds reasonable from the comfort of her desk.

She should try physical work for a day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:00 PM

148. As Dubya put it: "....Won't get fooled again." This would doom HRC '16.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:08 PM

151. just raise the cap, problem solved

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #151)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:17 PM

155. To paraphrase Pelosi's candid statement from a different context, "That's off the table."

 

If President Obama said "just raise the cap," if Majority Leader Reid said "just raise the cap," if Speaker Pelosi said "just raise the cap," it might be on the table.

They haven't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #155)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:22 PM

158. Then they are idiots if they really said that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #158)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:29 PM

161. Isn't that inconsistent? You reasonable said "just raise the cap" (#151), but now you say that

 

if President Obama said "just raise the cap," if Majority Leader Reid said "just raise the cap," and if Speaker Pelosi said "just raise the cap," "Then they are idiots if they really said that."

Are you saying that those who say "just raise the cap" are idiots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #161)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:37 PM

201. Just the opposite, if they don't solve social security by raising the cap they are idiots. I

Thought I was responding to the assertion that Pelosi said to raise the age not the cap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #201)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:17 PM

205. Agreed. If they don't solve social security by raising the cap they are idiots.

 

Because Pelosi has said a number of things over the years, the confusion is understandable. This is particularly true when a statement isn't accompanied by explanatory text. I overlooked that.

Basically, with respect to my paraphrase of Pelosi's 2006 statement after the overwhelming Democratic victory, Pelosi rejected the views of other House Democrats and the public generally with the following:

"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday (in Nov 2006) that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus."

" 'I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,' Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference."

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #205)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:29 PM

207. Appreciate the clarification

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:12 PM

153. It's perfectly reasonable. How else are we going to pay for the endless wars?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:25 PM

159. I would like to Opt out of SS. I will keep paying into the system, but I won't need the money

paid back to me if my current financial track continues. I want to still have the option of Medicare available. Maybe the solution is to identify people like me and see whether those people are willing to take no money from the system when they reach retirement age. The money saved can be left in the system to improve it's assets.

MHP is just throwing out an idea. My guess is that she won't need the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

162. Son of a fucking BITCH!!! WTF is wrong with

people? Koch brothers should be laughing out loud!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:19 PM

166. ReRe says: It's reasonable to lower the retirement age

K&R

Raising it is totally out of the question. If we can't lower it, then leave it the Hell alone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:49 PM

170. F*** that. Too many people worked too hard to keep SS as it is. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:59 PM

171. if the age was extended

how would it impact someone who is 61 right now? (My parents are 61 and 69).

I'm not so worried about my self--OK it sucks but I will have a few years to plan for it---but it is really evil for someone who is 61 and really can't change their planning....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brokechris (Reply #171)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:30 PM

175. The rhetoric during the Grand Bargain negotiations last year was...

It wouldn't include people 55 and older.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #175)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:01 PM

179. thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brokechris (Reply #179)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:49 PM

195. But read up on Chained CPI. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:11 PM

181. I'm sorry, but I despise that woman

She's so prissy and phony, I never could stand her. I love how she now thinks it's fine to screw the elderly out of benefits for 2 years.

Let's make her go without her salary for 2 years, and see how she likes it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:22 PM

183. maybe 2 yrs in 15-20 yrs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:37 PM

189. She wants to be on record for it when Obama offers that to repugs.

 

I'll never forget her claim that if you criticized President Obama, it meant you were racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #189)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:43 PM

191. She was right on the point in context! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:45 PM

192. Disconnect somewhere

The GAO found out that most workers do not live long enough to collect retirement. Rob Portman was all for companies putting a pertcentage of money into retirement account since most were going to die anyway. The article was in the Washington post few years ago. There is a lie it can not be both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:45 PM

193. Erskine Bowles...Obama's Democratic Co-Chair for the Catfood Commission

There's also a lot of talk he may become Obama's next Treasury Secretary. Did you know he just loves the Ryan Plan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #193)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:52 PM

197. "There's also a lot of talk he may become Obama's next Treasury Secretary."

When Obama announces it, let's have the pitchforks ready.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:50 PM

196. It's interesting that a

comment by a TV host that isn't even advocating a position, one made in an off-the-cuff way (there isn't even a trend here), is being used to represent the next move by Democrats and generating such vitriol toward Perry.

Yet this point by Reich is all but ignored.

Robert Reich: Why BP Isn’t a Criminal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021841131

Perry isn't a member of Congress. She's not in the decision-making loop. She has no sway in terms of where the Democrats come out on this issue.

Democrats stiffen spine against trimming benefits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021839199

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:22 PM

199. The propaganda is thick, indeed, even here at DU.

It is good to see people exposing it and calling it out.

Thank you VERY much for the video you are working on; we desperately need this kind of activism and education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:14 PM

204. Unnecessary and unwise...there is no imminent threat posed by SS

The real threat is free market retirement:

...Note that Social Security spending is more or less flat until past 2035, rising from a little below 5 percent of GDP to around 6 percent of GDP. We need a long, unhurried, thoughtful national debate to consider all of the options for dealing with this relatively minor shortfall in funding. The national debate should include ideas like adding non-payroll taxes to the Social Security revenue stream and raising, not cutting, Social Security benefits, which proved to be far more stable than tax-favored private savings accounts like IRAs and 401K s during the two stock market crashes of the previous decade.

But what’s the rush? Why do we need to deal with Social Security in a hurry in the next few weeks of the lame-duck session, or 2013? Why can’t reform of Social Security wait until later in this decade, or the 2020s?

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/the_case_against_a_grand_bargain/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:22 PM

206. It might work for some many laborers and other absolutely NOT!!

I'm a registered nurse.. Worked in the field for 30+ years. Studies show nurses have the second most mentally stressful job and the 5th most physically stressful job. This is just one example of many where raising the the retirement just won't work!! I have taken good care of myself over the years, mentally and physically sharp, but every nurse my age knows it's time to let someone else, someone younger call the shots, start the IVs and make the decisions that might seriously impact a life that hangs in the balance. Laborers, construction workers, wait staff, housekeepers, the list is endless. They may not be making the same kinds of deciisions, but they cannot continue to work like their 30!! It's disrespectful to say the least... And totally unfair. Obama ran on fairness for all. He better keep that promise, or all dems will suffer the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:33 PM

208. Thats not just mean, and stupid, it also wont save much

Those who have jobs too strenuous to make it that long will probably have to file for SS disability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:01 AM

213. This was a great ad when it came out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:58 AM

215. My reply to Melissa:

No, Melissa, it's not "reasonable to raise the retirement age"... What's reasonable is for millionaires to start paying their fair share of taxes. What's reasonable is to raise or abolish the cap on Social Security contribution. What's reasonable is to cut defense spending by at least half. What's reasonable is to stop saying that it's reasonable to raise the retirement age. Be reasonable, Melissa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:25 AM

223. Dear Ms Harris-Perry

Until you've worked a blue-collar job for 40 years and you go to bed every night and wake every morning with a body wracked with pain, please do not bless us with your opinions on what constitutes a "reasonable" retirement age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:31 AM

226. Oh right! Especially since there are SO-O many jobs out there

just dying to be filled by workers in their late 60s.

What's wrong with these idiots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:40 AM

228. "Trial balloon"... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:07 AM

230. to what?

THEY HAVE ALREADY RAISED IT FOR MANY OF US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread