HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Question: how would you f...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:30 PM

Question: how would you feel if they raised the minimum age of Social Security or Medicare?

I know how I'd feel. Betrayed. I'm 45. I've paid into these programs for 27 years. There's a very good chance I'll become too sick to work years before 65. I already have days where I can't move. I have a pretty good idea of what 20 more years is going to do to my body and my ability to work.

To me there's certain things that are sacred, and our American social contract is at the top of that list. Wall Street has been ass-raping the middle class in slow motion since the housing bubble began. They want to dismantle every inch of our social contract: privatizing schools, roads, the military...plundering our pensions, our houses, our communities. When is anyone going to stand up to them?

Betrayed wouldn't quite cover it for me, actually. It would be a tragic loss for civilized society. It would be as heartbreaking, in a complete and total way, as knowing that someone destroyed the Mona Lisa, blew up the Statue of Liberty, or cut down the last redwood.

The social contract is something precious that we'll never get back. If they're allowed to "chip away" at it, you can kiss it goodbye. If it is saved, through the recognition of its importance to our identity, I bet you, it will never be touched again.

It's really THAT important. We either fight and win this one -- or lose, and kiss it all goodbye.

258 replies, 19864 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 258 replies Author Time Post
Reply Question: how would you feel if they raised the minimum age of Social Security or Medicare? (Original post)
nashville_brook Nov 2012 OP
MrSlayer Nov 2012 #1
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #188
MrSlayer Nov 2012 #192
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #231
Sadiedog Nov 2012 #207
lsewpershad Nov 2012 #189
CreekDog Nov 2012 #191
Warpy Nov 2012 #2
behindthe8ballnchain Nov 2012 #41
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #56
wordpix Nov 2012 #99
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #149
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #106
Warpy Nov 2012 #141
Patiod Nov 2012 #152
Squinch Nov 2012 #160
Warpy Nov 2012 #168
JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #209
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #62
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #121
Sadiedog Nov 2012 #208
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #129
Warpy Nov 2012 #140
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #163
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #190
Faygo Kid Nov 2012 #3
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #44
wordpix Nov 2012 #100
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #146
newspeak Nov 2012 #155
csziggy Nov 2012 #4
truedelphi Nov 2012 #21
robinlynne Nov 2012 #73
truedelphi Nov 2012 #241
robinlynne Nov 2012 #245
truedelphi Nov 2012 #249
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #37
doc03 Nov 2012 #109
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #5
Cleita Nov 2012 #7
Kaleva Nov 2012 #15
Cleita Nov 2012 #19
union_maid Nov 2012 #32
Cleita Nov 2012 #39
Kaleva Nov 2012 #52
freshwest Nov 2012 #98
Cleita Nov 2012 #125
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #227
Cleita Nov 2012 #240
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #107
Kaleva Nov 2012 #38
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #17
truedelphi Nov 2012 #251
Cleita Nov 2012 #252
truedelphi Nov 2012 #253
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #22
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #55
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #123
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #40
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #111
Cleita Nov 2012 #6
truedelphi Nov 2012 #24
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #165
JKingman Nov 2012 #8
Cleita Nov 2012 #9
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #27
JKingman Nov 2012 #45
bananas Nov 2012 #117
truedelphi Nov 2012 #10
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #69
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #11
JKingman Nov 2012 #20
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #30
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #186
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #226
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #230
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #232
NMDemDist2 Nov 2012 #59
truedelphi Nov 2012 #250
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #122
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #173
pinto Nov 2012 #205
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #234
ronnie624 Nov 2012 #236
pinto Nov 2012 #237
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #12
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #28
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #76
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #134
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #136
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #172
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #224
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #228
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #13
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #46
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #164
okieinpain Nov 2012 #14
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #16
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #18
truedelphi Nov 2012 #29
forestpath Nov 2012 #23
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #25
abelenkpe Nov 2012 #81
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #90
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #135
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #26
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #171
Sadiedog Nov 2012 #211
patrice Nov 2012 #31
Autumn Nov 2012 #33
bluedigger Nov 2012 #34
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #48
bluedigger Nov 2012 #57
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #64
bluedigger Nov 2012 #72
still_one Nov 2012 #35
graham4anything Nov 2012 #36
Cleita Nov 2012 #43
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #54
newspeak Nov 2012 #157
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #67
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #82
RagAss Nov 2012 #87
dtom67 Nov 2012 #103
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #130
graham4anything Nov 2012 #131
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #137
graham4anything Nov 2012 #138
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #145
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #203
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #151
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #202
graham4anything Nov 2012 #213
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #220
graham4anything Nov 2012 #222
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #238
Sadiedog Nov 2012 #212
jeff47 Nov 2012 #217
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #235
Ilsa Nov 2012 #42
former-republican Nov 2012 #50
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #47
citizen blues Nov 2012 #187
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #214
DirkGently Nov 2012 #49
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #66
DirkGently Nov 2012 #83
kaiden Nov 2012 #51
unblock Nov 2012 #53
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #71
catbyte Nov 2012 #58
MichiganVote Nov 2012 #60
liberal N proud Nov 2012 #61
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #85
msongs Nov 2012 #63
sabbat hunter Nov 2012 #65
RKP5637 Nov 2012 #68
mnhtnbb Nov 2012 #70
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #84
abelenkpe Nov 2012 #74
Milliesmom Nov 2012 #75
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #175
plethoro Nov 2012 #77
Savannahmann Nov 2012 #78
eridani Nov 2012 #79
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #89
Marr Nov 2012 #80
RagAss Nov 2012 #86
BlueinOhio Nov 2012 #88
bowens43 Nov 2012 #91
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #92
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #93
dtom67 Nov 2012 #97
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #102
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #120
gkhouston Nov 2012 #94
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #119
JEB Nov 2012 #95
dtom67 Nov 2012 #96
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #101
Overseas Nov 2012 #104
begin_within Nov 2012 #105
krawhitham Nov 2012 #108
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #150
Hulk Nov 2012 #110
PETRUS Nov 2012 #113
bananas Nov 2012 #112
PADemD Nov 2012 #114
ReRe Nov 2012 #115
rudycantfail Nov 2012 #116
ProfessionalLeftist Nov 2012 #118
Skittles Nov 2012 #124
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #148
Permanut Nov 2012 #126
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #139
DirkGently Nov 2012 #142
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #147
ribrepin Nov 2012 #127
CTyankee Nov 2012 #258
aquart Nov 2012 #128
panAmerican Nov 2012 #132
aandegoons Nov 2012 #133
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #144
lonestarnot Nov 2012 #143
Cobalt Violet Nov 2012 #153
bvar22 Nov 2012 #154
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #159
HockeyMom Nov 2012 #156
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #161
raouldukelives Nov 2012 #158
davekriss Nov 2012 #162
Skip Intro Nov 2012 #166
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #167
WillyT Nov 2012 #169
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #170
Liberalynn Nov 2012 #174
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #184
Liberalynn Nov 2012 #239
Curmudgeoness Nov 2012 #176
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #178
Yo_Mama Nov 2012 #177
JKingman Nov 2012 #180
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #181
Yo_Mama Nov 2012 #185
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #179
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #182
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #193
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #183
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #199
Rain Mcloud Nov 2012 #194
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #196
SunSeeker Nov 2012 #195
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #197
SunSeeker Nov 2012 #215
ebbie15644 Nov 2012 #198
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #200
ebbie15644 Nov 2012 #247
DearAbby Nov 2012 #201
Pakid Nov 2012 #204
pinto Nov 2012 #206
ProSense Nov 2012 #210
SunSeeker Nov 2012 #216
Proud Liberal Dem Nov 2012 #218
graham4anything Nov 2012 #219
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #229
truedelphi Nov 2012 #242
Glitterati Nov 2012 #221
magical thyme Nov 2012 #223
Carolina Nov 2012 #225
99Forever Nov 2012 #233
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #243
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #244
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #246
SLY KAT Nov 2012 #248
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #254
deaniac21 Nov 2012 #255
woo me with science Nov 2012 #256
Raine Nov 2012 #257

Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:33 PM

1. I would be furious.

 

Because it's unnecessary, we should be expanding these programs not shrinking them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:33 PM

188. what would you be willing to do to prevent this?

I know there's a lot of organizing going on around this right now. AFL-CIO, for sure has a campaign going -- here's a link to their petition. I've read that this was a topic of discussion in their meeting with Obama this week.

http://act.aflcio.org/c/18/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=5062

Right now it's also very important that your Senators hear from you, since this is where the action will come from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #188)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:36 PM

192. My union is very active politically.

 

So I know we'll be out pounding the pavement. Writing my Senstors will not really help much, I have teabagger Toomey that wants to eliminate all "entitlements" and Bob Casey who is pretty much an untouchable DINO. I can at least try with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #192)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:35 AM

231. I've got Nelson and Rubio

i'm hoping the Nelson remembers how many seniors vote in this state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #188)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:44 PM

207. Thank you, signed and comment added! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:35 PM

189. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:36 PM

191. with Obamacare, insurers might oppose raising the age, and it might add to the deficit anyway

i don't think insurers would want to add older, higher risk people to their insurance rolls --they'd probably prefer adding younger customers not old.

and removing people from Medicare, which is cheaper per person than insuring them which adds the cost of providing profits to insurers (and because Obamacare subsidizes so many people, a 66 year old not covered by Medicare is more likely to cost the gov't more than one on Medicare).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:34 PM

2. Absolutely furious!

Those fucking desk jockeys have no clue in the world what toll physical work, whether as a lineman, cop, nurse, paver, waitress, or any other of the jobs that need our bodies to do them takes on those bodies.

Those assholes think an hour on the squash court keeps them in shape. They have no clue that kind of activity for eight or more hours a day will wreck their bodies completely.

It makes NO SENSE to raise the age. A much better case can be made for LOWERING it, with half benefits due at 55 to be eked out by easier jobs like gas station cashier until 65, when full bennies are due.

People who do physical work for a living have NOT seen an increase in their overall life expectancy, Mr. Desk Jockey. Only the soft pink men who work in air conditioned comfort and are lavished with the best food and medical care have seen that increase.

Asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:58 PM

41. Gotta tell you that

not everyone who works a desk job is lavished with the "best food and medical care" or are the "soft pink men" you describe. Though yes the air conditioning in the summer is nice.

Seriously, most of us are the 99% as well. And as much as you worry about the toll physical work takes on you, I honestly wonder if I will be able to maintain the mental agility needed to do my job until the current age of eligibility. Mentally speaking, I do heavy lifting and it takes a toll.

Point being there's really no need to draw a line between those who "shower in the morning and those who shower at night" (as Ed Schultz would put it) when there are nefarious forces in this country who would deny both you and I the dignified golden years that my parents and grand-parents were allowed. All so said greed bastards can have a bit more.


Oh - and how would I feel if the rules of the game are changed ? Like I paid a $1000 to see the Sex Pistols in San Fransisco back in '78. That's the show where they played one song and Johnny Rotten says "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to behindthe8ballnchain (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:12 PM

56. nice Sex Pistols reference! eggsactly.

i hear you about the mental agility of desk jobs -- there's also youth curve. i've been a designer for a lot of my career. you don't see many 60-year old designers. when you do it's b/c they own the shop, or they're a brand onto themselves.

over the course of my career i've seen the work go from "selling creative" to throwing shit together as fast as possible b/c you're doing the job it used to take 4 people to do. they want younger, cheaper and stupider -- not seasoned, more experienced, and thorough. certainly not..."creative."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:38 PM

99. "they want younger, cheaper and stupider" - same in my line of work

While my older age/experience is appreciated, what you're saying is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #99)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:10 AM

149. i've been planning how to segue into a "wisdom" career

the way i see it, you have to find a way to sell your experience/creativity/wisdom, instead of "filling orders" for publications, brochures, advertising, etc.

This generally means creating a niche, or boutique shop. So, i could specialize in healthcare marketing or campaign work.

But -- this is self employment, with all the problems and uncertainties of "not having a real job." been there, done that -- and will likely be doing that again, hopefully with a better client base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:52 PM

106. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to behindthe8ballnchain (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:23 AM

141. You still get to 65 with an intact body

Please read the post. The point was that physical work wrecks your body and a lot sooner than 65.

Body. Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #141)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:37 AM

152. Aren't nurses at highest risk for back problems?

I don't have the numbers, but I think they have the highest rates of back damage. My SIL is a nurse, and she had to go into dialysis work because she couldn't lift/move patients any more.

You are 100% right about the damage some occupations do to the body!

Although, in defense of "desk jockeys", no one wants to hire us with benefits if we're over 50. Hire us as consultants, sure. But not year round, and not with benefits. So if I'm really lucky, I now work March - June and September - November. I get January, February, July, August and most of December "off" without pay because my clients are unlikely to be farming out much work then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #152)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:56 PM

160. I'm a PT. We're way up there too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #152)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:29 PM

168. The corporate expiration date used to be 55

and if somebody in upper management hadn't died off or retired and there was no place to move you up, out the door you went.

I guess the rotten economy has pushed that back 5 years.

This is the other reason the retirement age has to be lowered, not raised. Think about having half your social security benefits coming in, you'd have some income to tide you over those lean months--or to supplement the ridiculously low wages of a dead end cashier job.

The problem is who's making the laws--desk jockeys who haven't been turned out of their jobs in their 50s. Hey, they think they can work forever! Thurmond practically did! So they ASSume the rest of us jolly well can.

And we can't. After 55, either our bodies have betrayed us or the job doesn't want us any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to behindthe8ballnchain (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:59 PM

209. Thanks!

I'm 39 and basically have paid in 30 years (modeled as a kid). I developed Ankylosing Spondylitis at 36. I'm good now - but I can't fathom having to work another 40 years or so. And I have been in telecom since the late 1990's - Frontier/Global Vrossing - Carrier Services when I started. 6 AM to 10 Pm plus weekends in my 20's took their toll. Wireless not much better. And we don't get overtime . . .

The picture looks pretty sometimes - and I feel for people who do physical labor (my husband is one) . . . But he sees the need for mental health breaks for "desk" workers - do more, more, more and don't complain or they will find a way to replace you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:15 PM

62. totally agree - no one takes into account the kind of work 90% of us do.

i'm a desk jockey, but i know that if i had to waitress again, i couldn't do it. i damn sure couldn't stand all day to do a retail job. forget about anything as demanding as nursing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:59 AM

121. It's worse than 'they have no clue'. They don't care. Those who want to cut

benefits, like Pete Peterson and Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, just don't care about the majority of people. They look down on everyone who is not part of their club.

How it has come to the point where a few greedy bastards are sitting around talking about how to take away benefits from millions of people, is a mystery to me. They are so few, we are so many. Who do they think they are? And why have the people allowed it to get to this point?

Who gave them the right to even discuss what to do with the PEOPLE'S money. They have no right to talk about it, let alone interfere with it in any way.

So it's time for them to learn just what a minority they are imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #121)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:54 PM

208. Great point it`s not their money. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:46 AM

129. Give the desk jockeys a break, we're all in this together. The attitude you project about those

 

that live lives you don't is the exact corollary that so many of them have toward the kind of work that I assume you do.

Have you ever heard the term "unskilled labor"? Do you believe that other people's occupations are more socially valuable than yours? Who is more important to our civilization, a neurosurgeon or the trash collector?

Are bad knees, or a bad back worse than cardiopulmonary disease?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #129)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:22 AM

140. I've worked highly technical office jobs

and I've worked in the trenches as a nurse. I know that office work is mentally draining.

However, it doesn't wreck your body in your mid 50s. Physical work does.

My point was that it wrecks your body, not that it's more valuable. Office work often pays better, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #140)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:51 PM

163. The pay is definitely an an issue even though many office guys make less that physical work.

 

But high stress office work kills and sickens people just as surely as does the physical work, especially when (most) people hit their 40's. The point I'm trying to make is that this is about all of us that are forced to exchange our lives for those that do the damage and none of us should have to live in deprivation after spending decades making others dreams come true.

We should be fighting together to make improvements for all of us, not arguing with each other over who has it worse and how much more we have to surrender so that the rich can take even more. We, our party, should be fighting for lowering the retirement age and expanding Medicare, not just hoping to keep the inadequate benefits we still have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:35 PM

190. i'm urging folks to start thinking about what you're able to do to prevent this

Right now it's very important that your Senators hear from you, since this is where the action will come from.

But there's also a lot of organizing that's ramping up right now. AFL-CIO has a campaign going, and a website petition -- they're doing delegation meetings locally, as well, if you have an active group where you live.

http://act.aflcio.org/c/18/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=5062

Share this too, if you can!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:34 PM

3. At 61, NOT VERY GOOD.

And they have talked about moving the chains now, even a month for those at 64.

And I don't want it moved for somebody in their 20s, either. I want my tax dollars to go to Medicare, not Neoconiware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:05 PM

44. +1 -- Medicare not warfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:39 PM

100. excellent slogan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:59 AM

146. Scrap The Cap

(I'm a bumpersticker idea machine!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #146)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:04 PM

155. i'm with you "scrap the cap"

this has been stated over and over again. a lot of people losing their once decent jobs are in their fifties and sixties. this age group is having a harder time finding work. i want to know if the sociopaths on the hill are deliberately attempting to kill those before SS even kicks in. if they increase the age, then no doubts about it.

i mean some have been screwed out of their pensions, screwed on their 401ks. of course, the ones that did the screwing are doing just fine. it's the marks (us) that aren't fairing well.

if they attempt to mess with SS and medicare, all the grey panthers should be out in the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:35 PM

4. We already feel screwed - my husband was hoping to retire at 63

He started working off the farm in 2001 in order to get health insurance for us (mostly for me - I have been uninsurable for decades). Our plan was that he would retire at 63 when we could get Medicare. Now Medicare doesn't start until 65 so he has to work longer. If they raise the age again, we will be pissed.

Though with the ACA there is the chance we can get affordable health insurance once the exchanges kick in. Of course, we live in Florida so either pRick Scott will have to change his mind about not setting up a state exchange or we will have to wait for a federal one - I would trust a federal exchange far far more than anything Scott had his hand in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:45 PM

21. The exchanges are not much help if

Your income is between 20,000 and 40,000.

In California, you have to pay over $ 17,000 a year before the exchange form of health insurance provides one red cent. It's
an $ 1,157 a month per person premium, then two $ 2,500 deductibles, and then co- pays.

Oh and you have to jump some hoops as well. I forget if you have to apply to three or maybe it's four regular health insurers?, and wait to be turned down by each of those, before you are allowed to go to the exchange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:23 PM

73. what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #73)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:34 PM

241. Let's see -

I SHOULD HAVE STATED in my original post (The one above yours) that if your household income is between 20 and 40K a year, and you are over the age of 58, you are in for a shock.

If you' re younger than that, your premiums are not so horrendous.

I can't find the state-run website that listed all this information. I do have this in my bookmarked listings - http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Pages/Default.aspx

Also one other thing - although there has been this pledge to see to it that people who cannot afford their premiums are helped, right now there is a glitch with that as well. It was announced a month or two back, that in reading over the two thousand pages of the ACA, the point is clearly made - the help will go to an individual who cannot afford the job offered health insurance.

So if an individual cannot afford on their salary the health care offered by their employer, there will be help for that individual. However, nothing is mandated regarding the coverage for that individual's family.

So if I can afford X amount, and that amount entitles me to coverage under my employer's insurance, but I cannot afford to have my husband on that policy, as he needs special expensive meds, or has a pre-exisitng condition, my spouse will be out of luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #241)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:34 PM

245. Very few of us can afford 1k per month for insurance! I can't imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #245)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:54 PM

249. Right now, the only subsidy for anyone my age in the state of Calif.

Is to apply for MediCal. In my case, we make Seventy dollars a month too much to get it.

Our big problem with "democracy" in this nation, is that the Political Class is so very far removed from the reality of what it means to live on a paycheck, pay taxes, and expenses and still survive.

One reason I couldn't bring myself to entertain a Pres. Hillary Clinton back in 2008, was how she had blithely declared back in 1993, that under her plan, a person in US making $ 24,000 a year would be spending only one quarter of their income on health insurance for themselves and their family... This showed me she was totally out of touch. Maybe she and Bill lived in the Deep South far too long - where even in the early 1990's, housing costs were rather minimal. (I had friends living in Louisiana at that point in time, and they were paying $ 300 for a three bedroom house with yard and garage.

But people in the big cities were already renting places that consumed half their paychecks. Plus paying one third of their income to taxes. (An indie contractor making $ 24,000 a year pays 3,600 bucks just to Social security - a fact that often is overlooked by the Political Class.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:56 PM

37. I think the age of eligibility for Medicare has always been 65....

In 1972 is was expanded to cover younger people who also receive SSDI (Disability) benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:15 AM

109. I believe the starting age for Medicare has always been 65 unless

you are disabled. I would consider a compromise raising the early retirement age to 63
if you were also able to get medicare at 63. I would guess most people are unable to retire early unless their employer pays their health care until they reach medicare age. When I became 62 my employer promised to pay for full employee health care until I became 65. I almost made it they terminated our insurance in September so I have to buy it myself for the next 8 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:36 PM

5. If you become too sick to work at 58 what good is SS/Medicare?

 

at the current eligibility age?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:38 PM

7. If you are disabled you can get Social Security benefits before you turn 65.

Medicare is another matter. You just have to suffer through our insurance system until you are 65.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:42 PM

15. I'm 53 and am on SSDI and get Medicare.

Medicaid kicks in for me for expenses Medicare doesn't cover and I meet the $709 deductible for any particular month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:44 PM

19. Medicare will pay for some medical conditions like renal failure just

because the insurance companies will jump through pretzel hoops not to cover it. But mostly you are on your own. I know. I have chronic asthma and sometimes find myself in the ER. Before I turned 65, we had to pay for those visits out of pocket. I didn't even have health insurance between the age of 59 and 65 because it got so expensive our income couldn't cover it and allow us to eat too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:53 PM

32. 2 Years

If you get SSDI, then you become eligible for Medicare after two years, regardless of age. With Obamacare, it may be more possible to bridge those two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:57 PM

39. That's good. I didn't know that.

I do know that some on disability could get Medicaid from the states they live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:09 PM

52. And it's two years from the date your disability began.

I applied in Oct of 2010 and the letter I got from SSA the following January saying I was approved was that upon review of my medical history, my disability began in January of 2008. However, SSA can only back date 1 year from the date one applied so my official time when my disability began was October of 2009. In October of 2011, I was eligible for Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:35 PM

98. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same, nor is SSI and SSDI.

Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)

I am not saying you do not know that, but some here may not. Below is some information from my experience with disabled people and a few links.

I have personal knowledge of persons put on SSDI prior to 55 who received Medicare 2 years later. Provisions are in place to retire workers before standard retirement ages and that will not change. Please note, I am referring to SSDI, the federal program, not SSI. AFAIK, the amounts given are the same as one who is going on full retirement, or at any rate, they are greater than those on SSI alone, who would qualify for Medicaid. Some qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, some do not.

Obama eased these more despite RW hysteria when he got into office. I have gone with people into the SSA office and found their attitude has changed greatly since Obama took office. They are much less adversial than I found them to be in the last few decades, IMHO.

Here is a little information to ease some of the concerns people have about any change in the retirement age. Although this comes up often, the increase in age was put into effect long before Obama. Here is something from a law firm citing the C. F. R.'s and easy to understand. ALJ stands for Administrative Law Judge, who is a frequent feature in initial claims. Contrary to RW propaganda, it is not easy to be declared disabled at ages beneath those listed above, unless it is a condition from birth, and that requires a lot of documentation:

Social Security Disability Law: Borderline Age

The Social Security disability regulations provide that the Commissioner will not apply the age categories mechanically in a “borderline situation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(a). The Commissioner considers a borderline situation to exist “when there would be a shift in results caused by the passage of a few days or months.” Social Security Ruling 82-46c. The Social Security disability court decisions appear to refuse to permit the mechanical application of the age rules where the disability claimant is less than a few months shy of the next age category.

Regulations
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(a), 416.963(a)


The regulations generally provide that age shall be considered a factor in determining whether a claimant is disabled. However, the regulations specifically provide that the age categories will not be applied mechanically in a borderline situation. The regulations were amended in April 6, 2000 to clarify that if a person’s age category changes during the period for which SSA is adjudicating a disability claim, SSA will use the age category that is applicable to the person during the period for which SSA is deciding if the person is disabled. See 65 Fed. Reg. 17994, 17995(April 6, 2000). SSA further explained that in borderline age situations, SSA will not apply the age categories mechanically, and that a “borderline” situation means that the individual is “within a few days to a few months” of reaching a higher age category.

Tip

If you are close to a critical age, such as 50, 55 or 60, examine if the Medical-Vocational Guidelines dictate a finding of disability once you reach the next age category. If so, have your attorney argue at the hearing that the ALJ should consider you disabled six months prior to this key birthday.

Rulings
Social Security Ruling 83-10


Social Security Ruling 83-10 provides that older age is an increasingly adverse vocational factor for persons with severe impairments. *The chronological ages 45, 50, 55 and 60 may be critical to a decision.* The ruling notes that the regulations also provide that the age categories shall not be applied mechanically in borderline situations. For example, a rule for an individual of advanced age (55 or older) could be found applicable, in some circumstances, to an individual whose chronological age is 54 years and 11 months (closely approaching advanced age). No fixed guidelines as to when a borderline situation exists are provided since such guidelines would reflect a mechanical approach.

Acquiescence Ruling 88-1 (11)

AR 88-1(11) was issued in response to the Patterson v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1455, 1458 (11th Cir. 1986), decision in the Eleventh Circuit (discussed below). In cases where the claimant resides in Florida, Georgia or Alabama at the time of the determination or decision at any level of administrative review (i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council) and (1) the issue of disability is resolved at the last step of the sequential evaluation process; (2) the Medical-Vocational Guidelines would otherwise direct a decision of “not disabled”; and (3) the claimant offers substantial credible evidence of his or her physical or mental impairments as proof that the ability to adapt to other work is less than the level established under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines for individuals of the particular age, a specific finding must be made as to the claimant’s ability to adapt to a new work environment.

http://www.jamesdisabilitylaw.com/borderline-age-legal.htm

This issue comes up often in threads, as if it a new program. It is not new, it has been expeced for decades. The increase in retirement age was enacted under Reagan. It should not, as I posted the link above, impact a person who is unable to work anymore. *I found this to be a great help to those who worried about age and have seen it applied.*

The upper level should be for those who are in good health. I have been surprised to find people who have just retired in their sixties, drawing pensions from their employment, social security and starting second careers making more than they did before. They are in fine shape (they were not doing physical work) and an older age for recieving social security will not impact them. We are simply getting closer to the timeline set in the eighties, AFAIK:

SUMMARY of P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900)
Social Security Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983


...Raises the age of eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase. Benefits will still be available at age 62, but with greater reduction...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

I hope this helps those worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #98)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:41 AM

125. Just because we don't go into detail on a short post doesn't mean

we don't know. Thanks for the info those for those who may need some brushing up. I know most of us here over 50 have become quite familiar with the SS website. It is an invaluable aid for the retired and soon to be retired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #125)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:04 AM

227. But you posted incorrect information about disability and Medicare, claiming that

Medicare is at 65 even with disability, and that is not correct. It is too important to play guessing games with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #227)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:39 PM

240. I never said Medicare is at 65 even with disability.

Regular Medicare is at 65 and I believe I said that there were exceptions because of certain diseases like renal failure. It's true I didn't know people could now get Medicare if they got SS disability. I still wonder if they really can, but then I would have to go through the Medicare website to do so and being we are in a holiday weekend, I was busy with other stuff. My bad that I am a little behind the times, however, people on SS disability used to be able to get Medicaid and I think this is what people are talking about. They both come from Medicare dollars. I still don't have time to research because I have to attend a funeral for and long time friend who died this week at the age of ninety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:56 PM

107. True!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:56 PM

38. I have a tendency to get blood clots.

I go to the hospital once a week to have my blood thickness checked and Medicare covers almost all of that. It covers almost all the cost for my blood thinner medication too.

Now I did have a very expensive month this past August when my blood thickness was out of whack and I lost my vision briefly twice (Doctors figured tiny blood clots got trapped in my eyes temporarily). After what Medicare covered, I was billed $709. Thankfully, Medicaid covered what Medicare did not. Otherwise I'd owe a heck of a lot more then $709 for August.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:43 PM

17. yeah, but SSDI is for anyone - even a 30 yr old.

 

and you have a long medical process to pass through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:05 PM

251. Hmm, yes and no.

In my case, I stopped working to take care of my husband, and now that he is better, I am being told that since I haven't paid into Social security for six years, I am out of luck.

I don't know if that is right or wrong but it burns me up. I was paying into the Social Security system starting back when I was nineteen. Why should it matter if I haven't paid into it for a small fraction of the overall time period that I have paid into it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #251)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:18 PM

252. Doesn't seem right to me.

If you have paid into it before, sometimes, it depends on where your quarters earned fall. I would talk to someone who has expertise in Social Security. It could be you can't collect right now but will be eligible sometime in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #252)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:46 PM

253. Well three years from now, I am elgible for Social Security itself.

I had no idea that I had to be continually paying in or I'd be screwed. Would be nice if the government ever explained the in's and out's of these things, but they are usually too busy explaining why we need to invade some other third world nation to tell us about our real concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:45 PM

22. You don't know how the system works?

Ever heard of disability? Where did you think those funds came from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:11 PM

55. there is no age restriction on SSDI

 

Seriously, anyone should know that.

If the SS requirement age is 110 SSDI is still there for a 30 yr old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:11 AM

123. Then what was your point?

No one said there was an age restriction on SSDI. Thank YOU FDR btw!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:57 PM

40. If a person qualifies for SSDI, they can get Medicare as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:28 AM

111. If you are trying to make a point, spit it out. Using questions is like Hannity. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:37 PM

6. Even though I am already on those programs, I would feel betrayed for you.

Actually, the Medicare age should be lowered to 0 and the Social Security age to 55. It could be done by raising the FICA cap so that all high income earners pay the full FICA tax on all their income. Lowering the SS age would make good economic sense because it would open up jobs to younger people entering the job market. Giving everyone Medicare would eliminate the need for the ACA and it would cost less and be more comprehensive. Businesses would benefit from that because they no longer would have the pressure put on them to provide health insurance. The conservatives really just get things ass backwards and none of their policies make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:47 PM

24. Really great answer.

I await the day when anyone in Democratic Leadership positions enables the politicians to do this for us.

Wars and money to modernize the military - always a big YES! Social safety net stuff, Nah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:20 PM

165. Couldn't agree more!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:39 PM

8. This nation can afford LOWERING the age

 

Medicare to 0 years, retirement pensions to 55 for those who are ill and dying.

Our nation has 3 times the wealth it had when Nixon proposed national health care. Five times as wealthy as when Truman proposed it. Yet, somehow, American folks who are rich or who represent the rich in Congress are proposing shorting the aged, sick, and disabled yet again? When over 60 nations in Europe and even Canada and Mexico or South America and Japan take care of their elderly and disabled, we are a nation proposing screwing these people?

We all think we should be rich and pay no taxes.

This is what shame and love of riches looks like, and this is how America will fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:40 PM

9. Even Cuba does better than us. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:47 PM

27. Yes, but WHERE is that wealth?

The wealth accumulated since the Nixon days has mostly ended up in the pockets of the 0.1%, and since Reagan, virtually all of the increase of wealth has gone to the top tier. They like having that money and they don't see any reason why some of it should go to the things you mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:05 PM

45. Yes, we know where it is! We only need a little of it

 

a very very very little of it to fix this.

A tax of 5% on the wealth of the weathly..no matter how they avoided taxes to get it.

Just charge someone like Mitt Romney, who supposedly has 250-300 million in assets, charge him 5% of that as a one time tax.

Do it to all those 300,000.. (.1%)..

We can take care of our elderly and disabled, and treat them well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JKingman (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:39 AM

117. Absolutely Correct, and Welcome to DU!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:40 PM

10. Raising Medicare age is a death sentencefor many -

Few older people who are NOT employed by some big corporation can afford health insurance. Even if the two of us go through the "exchange" set up here in Calif., it would cost $$ 17K a year before the exchange's health insurance program would kick in one red cent. (Over 1,000 a mo, plus two 2,500 deductibles and then co pays,each year.)

We have been tightly crossing our fingers and our toes-ies that neither of us gets sick before we reach that age. To raise it to 67 is CRIMINAL!

To the President , and to Congress members: Stop the wars. Stop enabling the other countries of the world to fight wars. And get the fifteen to sixteen trillions of dollars that Mr Bernanke dispensed to his buddies in the Global Elite in the form of the "digitized accounts" returned to our Treasury.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:20 PM

69. omg -- I had NO IDEA the exchanges were so useless!

are there any subsidies to help with the $17K a year? holy crap -- who can afford that? if you have $17K sitting around unused every year, then you might as well pay for medical care "as you go."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:41 PM

11. I'm 51. I do NOT believe "Social Security" as we know it now will be in effect when I'm 60, 65...

70, 75, 80...

There aren't enough "workers" paying into the system for that to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:44 PM

20. You are looking at this the wrong way.

 

There is enough wealth generated and enough people who have benefited from this wealth.

It is not the WORKERS who should pay the bill, it is the corporations that profit so much that should pay those bills.

Walmart heirs to Sam: total wealth: 89 billion dollars. Walmart workers without health insurance: 500,000!

Chart: 6 Walmart Heirs Hold More Wealth Than 42% of Americans Combined

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/walmart-heirs-waltons-wealth-income-inequality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:51 PM

30. There are more than enough workers,

that they are not earning enough money is the actual problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:30 PM

186. would you sign the ALF-CIO petition for this?

I'm trying to follow up this thread with some positive steps that can be taken. I know the AFL-CIO is organizing around this right now, and there's likely other groups near where you live...MoveOn.org, most likely.

Here's the AFL-CIO petition:
http://act.aflcio.org/c/18/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=5062

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #186)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:00 AM

226. I probably already had

because when I followed your link I received a "Welcome Back" message But to be certain, I signed again. I sign every petition that comes my way that stands for the middle class.

Have you posted this in a new thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #226)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:18 AM

230. not yet -- i need to do that today

i'm gathering new information -- there's an embarrassment of riches with good articles on Social Security right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #230)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:43 AM

232. Excellent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:12 PM

59. we baby boomers have been front loading the system since Rayguns

it's not up to the current amount of workers

google it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:55 PM

250. Thank you for the wisdom of your comment. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:07 AM

122. That's absolutely not true. You are buying the big lie.

The only way it won't be there in 15 years is if we let them do what they plan to do.

SS right now is good for the next 25 years, without doing a thing. It can meet all of its obligations with nothing at all being done.

And those numbers are based on the current bad economy and high unemployment rate. If the economy improves the numbers are even better.

Also, SS has had a surplus throughout this recession every single year no matter what the UE rate was. It has more than one source of revenue btw.

If just a few things happen now, end the wars, end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, create jobs and raise the cap on SS, the fund will continue to grow and SS will be good for the next 100 years.

Even without doing all of that, the SS fund will double by 2023. That means it will have a surplus of over 4 trillion dollars. That is why it will be able to meet its obligations 100% for the next 25 years (which means you will definitely not lose out UNLESS we allow the Anti SS crowd like Simpson/Bowles and their rich friends to go anywhere near it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #122)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:23 PM

173. precisely. It's a con.

It's so successful, in fact, that the government wants to borrow from it, and not pay that money back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #173)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:28 PM

205. The Soc Sec trust fund is intact. In fact it runs a surplus. Which is invested in interest-bearing

federal treasury notes. The principal is intact. The government isn't "borrowing" Soc Sec funds. They are *investing* surplus funds not needed for current or projected payments over the time line of the notes.

Unfortunately, the red herring that the feds are ripping off Soc Sec has gotten internet legs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #205)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:02 PM

234. precisely -- but, the good thing is that it hasn't been taken seriously in this latest debate.

not surprising, b/c scratching the surface of this canard reveals something about the whole debt debate (that it's not the crisis they want you to think it is).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #205)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:05 PM

236. The problem is,

the party that issued the 'special issue securities', is also responsible for paying interest on them and redeeming them, but is itself, $16 trillion in debt. So every time the government makes social security payments, it is doing so with borrowed money, and that's a fact easily demonstrated with basic math and simple logic.

Social Security should not even be a part of the discussion of a "balanced budget". It should stand on its own, as it was originally intended. Spending cuts are definitely needed, but they should come in the form military expenditures and taxpayer funded subsidies for the wealthy and powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #236)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:04 PM

237. I agree, it should stand on its own. And does. Soc Sec payments aren't borrowed money.

They're payments made from the Soc Sec Trust fund, i.e. our investments. The monthly payment I receive is money invested into the fund, by myself and millions of other Americans.

As I understand it, lots of individuals, cities, states and countries, for that matter, invest in Treasury notes as a safe, secured investment. Returns are obviously smaller than market speculators search for. Yet for those looking at long term security many seem to choose the option.

(disclaimer) I'm admittedly not an expert on federal money management. Yet I've watched the Soc Sec discussions as an interested party, i.e. Soc Sec recipient. Open to any more info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:41 PM

12. The devil is in the details

The last time this happened, the age moved up VERY, VERY gradually -- over the course of decades. I really don't think that is any big deal as long as the benefit age stays in relationship with the age where people are still healthy and able to work -- and that good jobs are available. In other words, if we have an effective health care system and a strong economy, it is not unreasonable to gradually move the benefit date out a couple of years. You can always retire early. You just have to make the right decisions before your senior years in order to do that.

I would find it completely unacceptable to make that the ONLY move to stabilize Social Security. We also must raise the income cap or eliminate the cap altogether. It is ridiculous that people making a fortune contribute the same amount as a person making $100,000 a year. The cap ought to be at least $200,000 and should be indexed to inflation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:49 PM

28. If you were born in 1960 or later, your full benefit age is already 67.

While you can still collect at age 62, I believe the penalty is 7% a year subtracted from your monthly benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:31 PM

76. Right and that crept up from 65 to 67 over 20 years

Moving the full benefit age to 70 with reduced entry at 65 is no big deal if that is phased in over 20 years -- AS LONG AS we are fixing our health care system so that people can realistically expect to have good health at age 70 and they are likely to have a decent job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:15 AM

134. Perhaps,

if we first fix the health care system. To be honest people who do physical labor for a living really can't, and shouldn't be asked to, work until age 70. Also, those same people are rarely entitled to the maximum benefit which is based on earnings so a reduced entry of at age 65 is criminally unfair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #134)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:18 AM

136. There is a question of first principles

Social Security was never a "retirement program". It was what it's name says, help for those who live beyond the time when they can realistically have a working income. The assumption was that most people would not live very long beyond their working years. That has changed. Today's health system does keep people alive a little longer, but it is not clear to me that it keeps people HEALTHIER in the older years. And I agree with your point that we may not have extended the years where a person can do a job that is physically demanding.

It seems to me that part of the challenge is to educate people better to save for their senior years. All the messages Americans get every day of their life are about consuming things -- borrowing money to consume now. That's the society we have, for better or worse.

I don't have any great answers here, but I do believe we should have made at least a little progress since 1990, making it possible to manage a very gradual rise in the benefits age. If a person is 50 today, they have 20 years to save some money to help deal with that migration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #136)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:20 PM

172. people aren't living longer -- that's a RW myth


Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.

What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #136)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:56 AM

224. It seems to me that the larger part of the problem

is paying people enough so that they actually have the ability to save for their retirement years. The conversation seems to revolve around that small segment of the work force that earns more than sufficient income and ignores the larger segment which is barely hanging on.

My blue collar father retired with dignity in 1972 with a stated benefits pension, how many people can look forward to that today? Where is that conversation? While the DJIA hits ridiculous heights how many people have benefitted from that productivity? 401Ks were a gift to corporations and Wall St., do you know anyone who watched their 401K collapse and now sit by helplessly wondering if it will ever recover?

We have many injustices and inequities in our "free market" system....raising the age on Social Security is simply one more injustice....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #224)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:49 AM

228. Yes, I agree almost 100%

In the hands of Cheap Labor Republicans it is very difficult to save. But I also think that we have a set of society values that abhors saving because we all have a patriotic duty to spend every penny we have and then some.

A consumption-based economy is only sustainable as long as the population increases.

Population increases are not sustainable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:42 PM

13. It depends on when it starts.

If it would only be active on those people who do not have years of work, say, on those who are under 18, it would be acceptable.

Or

If it were voluntary. People could opt to wait until they were 68 or 70.

The real problem is that some people work at jobs that are physically demanding and should be allowed to start earlier.

The best method is to get rid of the provision that cuts off donations of for beyond the approximately 120000 income range. Everyone pays for their income level. And, yes, those high income people would be able to collect at their time of retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:06 PM

46. cutting off payments to people with income >120,000 would cut less than 1% out

 

of the bill. it's purely symbolic & a trojan horse to decrease universality & support for the program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:01 PM

164. I oppose cutting off payments to people with income >12,000.

They paid into it. They should be able collect it.

People making over 120000 do not pay as much. I think that should not be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:42 PM

14. raise it, get it over with. 52 here. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:42 PM

16. Betrayed, but not surprised. With Erskine Bowles and

Simpson on that Deficit Committe, not to mention other enemies of Social Safety Net programs like Pete Peterson having so much to say about issues he has no business interfering with, I felt betrayed as soon as I saw who was on the Committee.

However this time people were prepared for betrayal and have been very active letting Congress know that they better forget any plans they had for touching programs that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT. Sorry to shout, but that cannot be said often or loudly enough because the lie continues to be told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:43 PM

18. i would feel like I'm done listening to the president talk

if he can't face them down on this slam dunk, I will pretty much give up on him asa a representative of me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:49 PM

29. The Presdident has already said that Social Security can't be cut. Ever.

Oh wait, that was Pres Eisenhower! (In a letter he wrote to his brother back in the mid fifties.) He was basically braggin' about the importance of Social Security and also unemployment programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:45 PM

23. Not only would I feel betrayed but I would never vote again. I mean, why bother?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:47 PM

25. Those born in 1960 or later

are not eligible for full Soc Sec benefits until age 67. 70% of retirees take their benefits, a reduced amount, at age 62. I believe the penalty is 7% a year. We need to emphasize this fact as most people still think in terms of age 65,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:37 PM

81. Yes please emphasize that fact

Remind those under 60 they've already been screwed and then LOWER the age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:07 PM

90. the range of ages collecting, means that a raise in the age lowers EVERYONE's benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/big-downside-raising-retirement-age-165049656.html

Social Security benefits are pegged so that a person reaching what the agency calls its "full retirement age" (FRA) is entitled to his or her full benefit. People retiring at the earliest age, which is now 62, gets about 75 percent as much money each month from Social Security as if they waited until their FRA--66 for those now approaching retirement. It's also possible to defer taking Social Security until age 70, when the monthly benefit would be about 132 percent of what it is at age 66. This benefit structure was designed to be dollar-neutral to Social Security. Looking at longevity data and past decisions of beneficiaries, the agency figured that it will pay out the same amount of money regardless of when people elect to begin receiving benefits.

Raising the retirement age from 66 to 70 means that the time gap between early retirement at 62 and full retirement has been increased from four to eight years. This assumes it would still be possible to take early retirement at age 62. If the agency keeps its benefit structure in place, it no longer can afford to pay a person 75 percent of their FRA benefit if they elect to begin receiving the benefit at age 62. Instead, that "value neutral" payment at age 62 will fall to about 57 percent of the full benefit. In dollar terms, a 62-year-old early retiree due $1,000 a month at his or her FRA would receive $800 a month if the FRA was 65, $700 a month if it was 67, and $565 a month if it was 70.

These calculations were made by Nancy J. Altman, co-director of Social Security Works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #90)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:19 AM

135. Another way they screw over the 99%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:47 PM

26. It's such a cynical way to cut off benefits to people. A certain percentage will die before ever

being able to collect.

I would rather lower the minimum age to 55, and cut a billion or two from defense, double taxes on the 1% and raise capital gain taxes 5%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:38 PM

171. Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:28 PM

211. Yes, it is cynical and shows what some people value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:51 PM

31. NOT acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:54 PM

33. Furious, betrayed and done with it all.

That would never be acceptable. Never

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:54 PM

34. As pointed out above, you (and I) aren't even eligible for full benefits until you're 67.

So, how did you feel the last time they fucked us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:08 PM

48. probably too young to care or be paying much attention. up into your thirties you

 

know you will never get old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:12 PM

57. It happened in the 90's didn't it?

I remember being pissed off at the time, and I was in my thirties. Now I just assume I'll be dead before I ever retire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:17 PM

64. nope, 1983, ushered in in steps. reagan, the source of all things shitty where SS

 

is concerned.

his fixes were supposed to save social security forever.

but we can't just blame reagan, cause a boatload of democrats voted for that thieving bill as well -- bipartisanship at its finest.


http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/IncRetAge.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #64)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:22 PM

72. Guess, I'm losing it already.

I hated Reagan for so many, many things. It's hard to keep them all straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:55 PM

35. I agree. They play the game by saying things like it would only affect

People less than 55, that is garbage to especially for those who have worked 20+ years

Just raise the cap, social security problem solved

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:55 PM

36. Americans live longer today than in FDR's time. Therefore, it is not necessarily something to deny

 

And it's a major difference.

The majority of people didn't live as long,therefore each person needed less money.

We all have to do our share. While not great, it is practical.

So I would be okay with it.

(And with better health care starting in 2014, the living age will increase again, so as Mr. Spock would say, it's only logical.

We cannot be selfish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:05 PM

43. Yes, that's the right wing's favorite talking point.

Not true because we already have more than two trillion dollars in the SS fund. All we have to do is raise the cap so that high income earners pay their fair share. Also, I heard something interesting. One of the reasons that stat during FDRs administration looked like a lot of people were dying before they became 65 was because many children didn't live past fifteen years of age making it look like there weren't that many elderly to reach the age of 65 back then to receive Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:11 PM

54. Benefit age has already been raised. The gap between post-retirement longevity

 

at inception of SS & post-longevity lifespan today is passingly small. and we're already being taxed with that calculated in.

Raising the age to 65 would = *less* post-retirement years paid than in fdr's time.

and note that for certain segments of the population, lifespan is actually declining. as with everything, most of the increased longevity has gone to the top.

i personally question whether americans are going to see much increased longevity in the years to come, despite the rosy predictions. certainly it's doubtful while their incomes are declining.

and *predictions* are what the demand for a higher retirement age is based on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #54)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:16 PM

157. well, i remember reading a sad, depressing article over ten years ago

about the number of seniors who commit suicide. they had the story of a prominent husband and wife, both professors (retired). the daughter found them both dead by poison. husband's health was deteriorating and they spent a lot of their funds on medicine. they were slowly going into poverty and didn't want to see their children bare the cost. that was just one story. i can't remember the rate, but it was high then. it's something that media really doesn't talk about.

some countries actually honor their seniors, while others want to throw them away like garbage; unless they caught the gravy train.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:18 PM

67. I thought that, too, until recently.

One thing that happened to change my mind is: I became unemployed for a short time this year. I am 58. I then realized that, hey, how long someone works is not necessarily the worker's decision. In fact, it often isn't. I was lucky enough to find another job, but usually, if someone my age is laid off, they will not find another job, or a decent job.

Someone my age would be hanging on...every week, every month, every year would be sucking his/her life savings, paying for health care and living expenses. If I hadn't found another job, I would've used my life savings to pay for living expenses, hanging on until I could get some Social Security at age 62. Then I'd have to hang on for only 3 more years to qualify for Medicare.

I work in an office. But the working poor have physical, hard jobs. Their employers may get rid of them when they get older, or they just get worn out. They are shoe salesmen, cashiers, construction workers, waitresses. They're on their feet many hours a day. Not many people are going to hire a 62 year old waitress. She will NEED Social Security.

We are not in control of our destinies. The wealthy guys...they are in control of how long they stay in their office jobs, usually. When they get really old, they stay on as consultants, even. And they have much more money to rely on for living expenses. Union workers get benefits and age of retirement protections.

The AGE a person qualifies for these benefits is critical to many lower income and middle class workers.

One more thing: If Medicare shaves off a couple of years of participants, that concentrates the older, more sickly ones into Medicare, making it less efficient, arguably. (65 year olds are generally healthier than 67 year olds.) AND those two years...if they're not able to get good health care, when they enter Medicare, they will be less healthy, costing the program more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:41 PM

82. raising the age would actually REDUCE the benefits everyone gets, regardless.

Because of the way that Social Security benefits are calculated, changing the definition of “Retirement Age” in the Social Security Act cuts Social Security’s monthly retirement benefits across the board, irrespective of the age at which benefits are claimed.

It is most accurate to think of Social Security not having a single retirement age, but a band of ages. Workers can claim retirement benefits beginning at age 62; for every month they delay, up to age 70, the benefit amount is larger as a result of an automatically applied adjustment.


http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/Cuts_from_Raising_Ret._Age_to_69_updated_9_7_12.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:53 PM

87. You must come from old money.

Don't peddle that bullshit here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:42 AM

130. It isn't logical, it is simple minded.

What is logical is if you aren't a grifter ass vulture and have two brain cells to rub together the epic scope of this snow job alone would make it too big to miss.

We'll begin with the base misconception that is used to "justify" the shake down, "we're living longer".

You're going to tell us that and are just parroting boiled down numbers, raw life expectancy. I would think that the sensible number to consider for this justification would be life expectancy at retirement age which I grant you has gone up some (though nothing like the span you're peddling) but when you do that why are you not accounting for in any way that the programs themselves are part of (maybe every bit of) what drives that increase of what 2-3 years?

The point always was to extend life, if it wasn't then you'd let granny starve, die of cold curled up under a bridge, or pass from the onslaught of untreated ailment and disease. The programs inherently will increase life expectancy IF people can reach them without both feet in the grave.

Then we must look at if simply expanding life expectancy beyond retirement age is also meaningfully increasing effective working years and if so at what rate? The assumption of one for one seems...assumed.

Next, we'll have to delve into what seems TOTALLY disconnected among everyone singing this tune which is the workforce has no need for additional labor. What kind of crazy does one have to be to be actively seeking to do something that can only reduce lifetime wages and increase the likelihood and duration of periods of unemployment. This in turn actually reduces on the net, the money going into the fund creating the opportunity for future manufactured crisis.

Not to mention we just fell for the same bullshit thirty years ago and the age I already 67.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #130)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:19 AM

131. I blame Ralph Nader for this too... Gore and Bush were NOT the same, yet Nader lied again.

 

One thing is a fact- when people retire, they die. People who do something, live longer
historically this has been true.

People need to remain active, to keep their minds active. How many times do you hear someone retired, then two weeks later died.

and another trueism is- us Baby Boomers are the single most selfish generation in history.
Come on admit it, WE ARE SELFISH BRATS. Now we are caring for elderly parents (if they are still alive) and the economy sucked for a while (or still does) and climate change has doubled her effect.

we want we want, we didn't save we relied on our mommy and daddy and now, voila we are scared shit because we didn't save and we are caring for mommy and daddy.

SS was never intended to be the only source of income. It was not meant to support someone for perhaps 30-40 years after retirement.

Calling me names and simple minded and all does not get into things seriously.

Of course, I blame Ralph Nader and his Bush/Gore the same meme.
Gore and his lock box were the thing.

But people listened to Nader and Gore lost NH because of that. He won without Florida if he won NH. And SS would have been safe.

And I am getting sick and tired of people here not wanting to discuss OUT OF THE BOX.

One cannot live to be 90 and spend the ages 65 to 90 doing nothing but playing golf.
It was different when someone retired at 65 and knew they would die in the next five years.
Now it seems, if you make 80, you make 90.
And therein is the problem.

Ten extra years.

and yes, you gotta look at the cold raw numbers like an accountant or statistician(say Nate Silver) or actuary.
(me I am a trained accountant, though not practicing one.) And I love stats.

and as for me, whatever President wants or does is 100% fine by me. I am not the #4 president of all time, he is. He is smarter than me, and has great people around him who know alot more than me. I give him unconditionally. Because my life is bettered by anything he does.
Period.
it's not like anyone else would do any better. So he has my 100% unconditional support.

And so far he has suckerpunched and rope a doped his critics very well. Soon we will have even better health care, therefore we shall live longer and longer

and the wheels on the bus go round and round.

but you gotta see the 9 steps ahead to appreciate it.

AND us BABY BOOMERS GOTTA STOP BEING SO FREAKIN GREEDY and spoiled.
How possibly could any further generations be better off than us baby boomers?
It was NOT possible as boomers skewered that line.
(this reminds me-= the greatest generation(I use that mockingly here)- brought boomers up wrong, very wrong. Because they never teached boomers not to be so freakin' selfish and needy.
We patted ourselves on the back cuz we protested. Yet we lacked certain needs in life being coddled so much.

(cue in the Bellamy Brothers "old hippies" and "kids of the baby boom" records)

Like the environment, it is unsustainable eternally.

Let me add-once I had a discussion about life with my now decesased Archie Bunker clone father in law. And I said something or other about life being fun.
And he said, under what right should anyone think life should be fun?
Yet we grew up thinking it should be.

we pay the price for the fun we had.
While we slogan'd- "leave something behind for the future", we financially did not do that.

therein lies the conundrum, and it is there, whether or not you put me down or call me names and ad homenim me, the truth is out there.

We are living unsustainable lives.

(or as John Lennon sang "IMAGINE no possessions, it isn't hard to do"...and then the world would live as one.
We can't live without them.

Also-SS is not being changed for those who are of age. The change would be further down the line.

I for one would hope the kids wouldn't need SS to survive their last 40 years of life.
But then, after 9-11, I wonder how many kids think they are going to reach old age anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #131)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:37 AM

137. Nobody said you were simple minded, your argument is and you did nothing

to unwind that by going off and a silly assed Nader rant, avoiding points made, stopping by a boomer bashing talking point (which I am not one, which doesn't mean that you are trying to increase my retirement age twice to "solve" the same problem nor prevents me from recalling the last deal), mix in a few "Hail Obamas".

I don't care if you were an accountant because you would make a sloppy one that misses too much, that decreased mortality rate means more people pay in for more time and you also only want to use the numbers that make up your argument while you can't or more likely won't process any others. Sound like a book cook to me and one that wants to reduce the safety nets because they work too well and want to flood the labor pool because people make too much and most of all wants another crisis in a few years so you can keep hacking away further and do away with these programs.

Not a moment's thought that you are screwing those younger AGAIN. You let Reagan increase our retirement age and CONTRIBUTIONS which pay for your ladder pulling ass and now want to again before the last increase has kicked in.
You want to raise it on me again, raise it on your self, Sir.

Holler about Nader hate and how much you love Obama all you like, it will not change shit about the reality of those dynamics that you will not address even though you actual use the concept of calculating post retirement age expectancy but only to lie and declare it ten years and flat fucking refuse to account for the programs increasing longevity.

Write a check with your own baby boomer ass and stop pulling from my fucking account and then having the unmitigated gall to pretend it is somehow noble and smart when it is 100% neither when all you are really doing is carrying water for the wealthy that you think are so bloody smart by taking standard GOP/Chamber of Commerce/neoliberal talking points while adding the flavor of your own emotion and appeals to authority.

Stop trying to steal the fruits of the American people's productivity for the wealthy. That is the entire game here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #137)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:45 AM

138. If Obama gets us a France like health care, we save 1000 times the money SS provides

 

It is like Lincoln restating words in other terms to get better than one would have but letting the other side have an out so they can negoiate with their troops.

I pay $3000 a month I cannot afford for my self employed health care and only get SS out of any profit a business makes.
While those employed in ANY business get cheapie health care that maybe should go up 20 bucks a month as it is so cheap compared to mine anyhow

Where is the equality?

Again, if we get free health care by paying upfront a little more, the money back we receive will be so many times more that in the long run, we get more WHILE PRODUCTIVE and while NOT productive (either way).

And nobody is taking away any SS of anyone of age.

This is for 20 years or 30 years down the road.

When people may all live to be 100, not 63.

anyhow, its just word semantics. So let them think we change a few and have given in, while getting so much more in return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #138)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:57 AM

145. it is flat-out untrue that people are living longer (dying at an older age)

Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.

What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #138)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:17 PM

203. Where is the equality? Simple, Medicare for All. Like all other civilized

nations who understand their government's first responsibility is their the well being and security of their own citizens.

Cut the War Budget in half and no one will be without health care in this country.

Our priorities are so skewed, we spend trillions to kill people, while allowing 44,000 American citizens to die each year for lack of access to HC.

Isn't National Security supposed to about protecting American Citizens? The death toll from lack of HC is bigger than any terrorist could inflict on this country, but our 'leaders' simply ignore it. So much for the lies they tell about all of our wars 'to keep us safe'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #131)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:19 AM

151. this isn't about "the baby-boomers being greedy" it's about Wall Street being greedy

This our money. We paid into it our whole working lives. Raising the age cuts the benefit for everyone in real dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #131)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:11 PM

202. Wow! Well lucky you if your kids won't need SS. Lucky me too. But I am not so

self-absorbed that I don't know that not everyone is so lucky and that millions of Americans for reasons too varied (because we are talking about human beings here, not statistics) to list, will have no other income in their later years.

Since you are opposed to policies that are the very cornerstone of Democratic achievements for this country, may I ask 'why are you a Democrat'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #202)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:39 PM

213. ranting is nice, but reading what I said would be nicer. Nobody is taking SS away. However

 

SS is a finite number per person.

Whereas health care is a variable, and most people pay out alot more in health care, then they ever will make and pay SS and receive SS.

If they get in the next twenty years XXXXXX number of dollars by giving up XX number of dollars, seems well worth it.

If you are talking about 40 year olds, well the 40 year olds have 27 years til they will collect.
That is 27 years they are paying such large health care costs that they never will get back.


That is 27 years before anyone will be collecting SS in the first place.

Not to mention, who pays for ones garbage disposal, or snow shovel or education or whatever?
There are plenty of places to make it up.

BTW-most people don't reach the yearly limit of SS tax. So if say SS was taxed on a different scale over the point where people never get up to, that would not affect say 80% of the taxpayers, but would make those earning more pay more.

And making the Capital gains tax larger would mean the wealthy pay even more.
The rich don't make big salaries, they get paid in stocks/bonds. Tax that even more.
Plenty of ways to make up the difference.

(and IMHO, make pot legal and put the same tax on it as cigarettes, 100% amnesty then citizenship instantly and then tax all the immigrants who now are legal citizens making legal salaries and billions more.


oh, and yes, I am for taxing the internet because prior to internet shopping, everyone already paid those taxes and didn't complain. So shopping online should be taxed, it helps the brick retailer compete today and is only fair to help those people.

Remember, as democrats, we don't mind taxes long as the money goes into spending for good stuff we all need.

Here is a suggestion-raise money by putting a really big tax on guns and bullets.
Make those items like the repubs want abortions, to be used and bought infrequently and all.
Say a 50% tax rise.
As they are an item most don't ever need (I think just 4.3 million people are members of the NRA, and the vast majority of those are wealthy republicans, so tax tax tax them.
Same with other big items like yachts.


btw, there is no new agreement about "the fiscal cliff". So why think it is a negative, prior to even seeing or hearing anything about it but soundbytes from interested parties and bravado by certain politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #213)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:43 AM

220. Well, those seem like reasonable proposals although I would have

to think about taxing sales on the internet. People are stimulating the economy by shopping online and not having to pay taxes probably is an incentive. So I might wait until the economy improves to think about that.

I would add, 'end the drug war' and tax drugs which would bring in huge revenues. Right now criminals are profiting from drug sales, and we are paying for a useless, failed and brutal war in which over 60,000 people, some say maybe as many as 90,000 have been murdered over the past six years.

We have the money to have a good HC system. It's our priorities that are the problem. We spend it all on death instead of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #220)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:38 AM

222. I agree with MOST of what you write here, except

 

People shop online in great numbers because it is easy, they don't have to waste gas getting to the store, they don't have to push and shove if there is a sale.

I would bet sales would not decrease if there was the same tax that they found in stores.

I would love to see good worded polls on this.

Why would someone NOT shot online and then waste gas and time getting to the mall or store which would cost more than the at most what, 8.75% tax?

I buy and sell online and I myself have never not bought something because the seller said sales tax.

Face it, we are a lazy society. Even when we click we don't want the hassle of clicking another time to save a small amount of money if the rest of the deal is good.

Time is money and spending two hours going to the mall and back (or more) when you can get it online and pay THE SAME TAX in the store itself anyhow is not cost effective.

(and of course those items that are not taxable in store would have the same no tax online.)

All sellers online who bring in $400 or more a year have to file taxes anyhow(or legally should).
Those that do not, create the problems and higher costs and taxes, for those that are honest.

(now we can argue taxes and no one likes them, but all taxes serve a purpose and our country does run on all the different types of taxes anyhow. Nothing is free.

(and those poorer people of course can get vouchers or whatnot and we can make it equitable for everyone.
Why should a billionaire shop for a luxury item online and pay zero tax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #222)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:20 PM

238. Well, those are all good points and I have no objection to

paying taxes for shopping online. There are a few other considerations though. Some people may be trying to save money, if they have a family but not a big income, people will look to try to save anyway they can.

Changing something that people have been accustomed to is always difficult.

You made some good points that could be persuasive to those trying to save money, eg, pointing out that they are saving on gas and time eg.

I think the main reason for no taxes on online purchases is that they haven't figured out to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #131)


Response to graham4anything (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:44 PM

217. Except that we aren't living longer.

The statistics look great, but that's because childhood mortality is much, much lower. And those kids back in "FDR's time" weren't paying into social security before they died.

Basically, if you made it out of childhood "in FDR's time", you lived a whole 2 years shorter than today. And we already raised the retirement age by two years to 67.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #217)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:05 PM

235. spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:01 PM

42. Furious and betrayed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:08 PM

50. this

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:07 PM

47. TOTALLY P.O'D! Seriously. I will be very angry. Very very very angry. It's unacceptable. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:32 PM

187. Get ready to be PO'd. Age for full retirement for anyone born 1960

or later is already 67.

So the poster being 45 now, will not be able to collect full social security benefits until 67 - NOT 65.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to citizen blues (Reply #187)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:18 PM

214. My full benefits age is currently 66. That's old enough. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:08 PM

49. Goddamn right. UNACCEPTABLE. We can expand, NOT contract the social contract

and the safety net. We have little enough as it is, what we have is good and works well, and we have an infinite number of other options besides screwing up social programs. Park a bomber. Raise the cap. Whatever we need to do. These programs are inviolable. They are the core of what America needs to do, and the direction is toward, not away from them. Fuck anyone beating the drum that cuts are "inevitable."

We'll show you fucking 'evitable, motherfuckers.

That's how I feel about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:18 PM

66. +10000000 -- there's too many people who want you to think it's "inevitable" right now...

Super good article right here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/wall-street-finds-a-third_b_2158836.html



Wall Street Finds a 'Third Way' to Plunder Our Wealth

Gotta hand it to 'em: Those Wall Street guys are smart. They've already found two ways to plunder the nation's wealth for their own enrichment, and now they're working on a third.

The first way? Identify and finance a wave of Democratic politicians who would join with Republicans in deregulating Wall Street. The second? Employ the same so-called 'centrist' Democrats, along with their Republican cohorts, to bail them out after they crashed the economy. That bailout continues, and the assurance of protection from being prosecuted for their criminal misdeeds.

Now comes Wall Street's "third way" of hijacking the nation's wealth: it's trying to persuade Democratic supporters to support the dismantling of the social contract that has held our society together for 75 years. And it's using many of the same tactics -- and many of the same faces -- it used in its first two forays.

If you liked Wall Street deregulation, an inequitable bank bailout, and a get-out-of-jail-free card for bank executives, you're going to love this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #66)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:45 PM

83. Tada. It's a scam. A proposed taking. Nothing more or less than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:09 PM

51. It would SUCK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:10 PM

53. totally betrayed. i started paying in just when reagan doubled fica, exactly to prevent this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:22 PM

71. me too. and still when it was doubled, it was amazingly cheap,

compared to the rest of the taxes taken out of every check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:12 PM

58. Ripped off

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:14 PM

60. Um, I already only eligible at 67..getting kinky Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:14 PM

61. It would be one more rug pulled out from my senior years.

RUG 1-- I am 53 years old, my company just announced "significant" reduction in staff. If you are one of the one's who are still employed come January, there will no longer be a pension.

RUG 2 -- What I have accrued is all there will be when I do reach retirement age.

RUG 3 -- Retirement age being raised?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #61)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:48 PM

85. seriously -- to pile and age change with the decimation the middle class has endured

to their pensions, real estate value, and savings...it's theft. simple extraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:16 PM

63. this assumes your elected politicians care what you think now that they elected again nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:18 PM

65. if you are too ill to work until you are 65

then you are likely to be eligible for SS disability and medicare disability.


That being said, all they really need to do to fix SS is eliminate 100k cap on income that is taxed (And make sure that all income including dividends, etc are taxed), and some other minor changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:20 PM

68. It would be another American ripoff in US = United Stupidity, Inc. on the fast train

to the bottom. That's how we deal with things in the US anymore, destroying the fabric of the country 'till we just live in dirt patches eating worms and clawing over each other, yep, American Exceptionalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:22 PM

70. I'm eligible to file for early SS in December--and I am--to begin when I turn 62 next March.

I worried all through the Bushie years that this option was going to disappear for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #70)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:46 PM

84. If you get $700 month at 62, and the age is raised to 69, your benefit drops to $610 (less $90)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:29 PM

74. It is that important

I completely agree. I'd feel betrayed. I would be furious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:29 PM

75. Time to write the President and let him know how we feel.

To anyone suggesting to raise the retirement age for Social Security.
First,I say they have not done manual labor all of their lives.

Tell that to the coal miners who are almost broken by the time they are sixty years of age, if they live to that age.. Tell it to my great uncle who was a logger his entire life and was so crippled up by the time he reached retirement age he was hobbling around.
Tell it to my brother-in-law who delivered papers to the boxes you see sitting on the streets, he is only seventy two and crawls up his stairs to bed because of his bad back. Tell it to the farmers who have labored in the fields everyday for their entire lives, or the food service and salespeople who are on their feet eight or more hours per day.
Tell it to the roofers when their knees give out at age 55, or the plumbers , electricians and carpenters who spend long hours on their knees while working,or crawling under old houses.
Tell that to the many many male and female nurses who lift ill patients until their own backs are worn out.
The professions of so many require so much man and woman physical power to do the work that by retirement age their bodies are worn out .. Don’t make it mandatory that they have to wait even longer, after all they have paid into it their entire lives and should they choose to work longer after retirement age let it be their choice, not someone in Washington that may not have done any hard labor in their entire life.
Remember what we call the “Golden Years”? They are fewer now because of the economy and retirement age already in existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Milliesmom (Reply #75)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:37 PM

175. call and write your senators, also -- that's where the action is right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:33 PM

77. Yes, and fighting means actual fighting, not

 

emails and posting on websites. The police will go against us, but the military will not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:35 PM

78. Well. You said it best

I know how I'd feel. Betrayed.


But I bet we lose on this one. Because our candidates campaign to the left to get us out to vote, and govern to the right to make their plutocrat puppet-master happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:36 PM

79. Raising Medicare eligibility age = mass murder

SocSec retirement age is already too high at 67. What would really be a much worse disaster would be raising the age you could collect initial benefits from 62.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #79)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:59 PM

89. amen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:37 PM

80. Betrayed, disillusioned, and extremely pissed-off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:51 PM

86. Suicidal - and that is not a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:57 PM

88. Washington Post

A few years ago there was an article in the post about the GAO finding out that there where several people who die before getting benefits. Rob Portman turned that into companies did not have pay retirement but only for the percentage that might live. So here is Mister
Pro life instead of investigating why the workers were dying and working on a solution, for example is it because they did not have health care or maybe the regulations on the jobs needed to be enforced he tries to save companies and CEOs money. So much for the age needing to be raised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:10 PM

91. Completely pissed......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:15 PM

92. As long as Mr President signs off on it, I'm cool with it.

He would never do anything to betray us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:20 PM

93. Times have changed. Those programs need some adjustments.

Let's face it - Seniors don't create jobs. Job Creators create jobs. If we take enough money from Seniors and give it to the Job Creators, then they'll eventually create a job.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #93)


Response to dtom67 (Reply #97)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:43 PM

102. You have it all wrong. See, the money doesn't all go into offshore accounts

some goes into bidding up the price of assets like stock.

Then the magic fairys fly around and jobs appear.

(my post above was sarcasm)

Regards,

First-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #93)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:50 AM

120. Third-Way Manny...






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:24 PM

94. An honest description of how I feel about this would probably be a TOS violation. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #94)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:45 AM

119. for reals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:24 PM

95. Makes me want to

drive a stake through the heart of vampire insurance companies. Talk about a drain on productivity. Enacting medicare for all would be the most stimulating thing for our economy, freeing up consumer cash and relieving company costs making US more competitive with the rest of the developed world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:40 PM

101. Enraged. That would be discriminatory and there's no need to raise the age

eligibility AT ALL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:44 PM

104. Medicare change -- Lower the age to 0 !! Medicare for All !!

Any other changes are unacceptable UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE TRIED

Raising taxes on the Top 2 %

Instituting a tiny transaction tax on Wall Street trades

De-privatizing our military and eliminating the billions lost to war profiteering

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:51 PM

105. Medicare should be open to anyone who wants to buy into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:01 AM

108. It would suck but I see the logic behind it

Don't get me wrong I do not want to see it raised, there are much better options, like removing the SS cap for contributions for one. But life expectancy is higher than when these programs were created so they cost more to run. I would much rather pay 1 or 2 percent more on these programs each check than to raise the age

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #108)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:15 AM

150. it's a RW red herring that "people are living longer" -- completely NOT TRUE

Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.

What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:21 AM

110. I've been considering "means testing" for Social Security, but....

...I'm not even sold on that one, as we've ALL put into, and we should be able to get our investment back if we did. I know several family who died shortly after starting their benefits, and they never got back what they gave. I know of thousands who fought with me in Vietnam who never saw a penny....or those in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Raise the cap on contributions.....problem solved. Call it "a tax" if you like....tough bannooch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hulk (Reply #110)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:32 AM

113. You're right to doubt/question means testing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:32 AM

112. k&r - they should LOWER the minimum age

Advances in technology and medicine have resulted in increased productivity as well as increased longevity.

Instead of siphoning off the profits to the 1%, they should be re-invested.

Lowering the minimum age opens up more jobs for younger workers.

Lowering the minimum age enables people to draw on their years of experience to create new industries, new areas of expression, new areas of exploration in science and art.

Raising the minimum age leads to stagnation and decline.

This is the difference between regressive and progressive politics.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:34 AM

114. Furious

The age at which I can collect Social Security has already been raised one year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:34 AM

115. I'm with you, nashville_brook...

....BETRAYED. And they should lower the ages instead of raising them. If they change any of those programs (Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid) this will not be the America we've lived all of our lives in, fought & died for, worked and paid into the systems all of our lives and paid taxes for. We will be a 3rd world country.

After this election, though, I think the shoe is on the other foot. It's the reason all of the money-mongers are going crazy. Their number is up. This "cliff" business is nothing but a trick they came up with. The only thing that's going to go over some imaginary cliff is the Bush tax cuts.

It's a shell game, folks. Has anyone seen the shell game actually played? I went to a historical festival a few years back and happened by this fellow dressed in period costume. He didn't actually take any money... he just explained how it was done, and told the whole history of the game. (He was good at his craft, too.) If you EVER have a chance to see this game demonstrated, take it. Right there in that simple game, I saw how the money-mongers do it. It's a game of bait and switch. Sleight of hand. It's an old con game.

When I seen that look that Hillary give Bibi today, I puffed up with the biggest feeling of hope that I've felt in years. Something is happening here, and it's good. This is Thanksgiving. Let's put our worries aside for now and enjoy the Holiday. I believe the odds are on our side now, and that is something to be thankful for. Sorry to preach. Let's party now....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:36 AM

116. If the Democrats follow through

 

on this deal, I will no longer vote straight Democrat again. I will only vote for known liberal candidates regardless of party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:41 AM

118. PISSED. OFF. AS. HELL.

There is NO reason to do it, except that greedy corprats want it all for themselves. It's immoral.

It's MY goddamned money. NOT theirs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:22 AM

124. you know it is ALREADY past 65, right?

it's 66.6 for me, and I am 55

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #124)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:04 AM

148. you can start taking 75% of full retirement at 62

http://news.yahoo.com/big-downside-raising-retirement-age-165049656.html

Social Security benefits are pegged so that a person reaching what the agency calls its "full retirement age" (FRA) is entitled to his or her full benefit. People retiring at the earliest age, which is now 62, gets about 75 percent as much money each month from Social Security as if they waited until their FRA--66 for those now approaching retirement. It's also possible to defer taking Social Security until age 70, when the monthly benefit would be about 132 percent of what it is at age 66. This benefit structure was designed to be dollar-neutral to Social Security. Looking at longevity data and past decisions of beneficiaries, the agency figured that it will pay out the same amount of money regardless of when people elect to begin receiving benefits.

Raising the retirement age from 66 to 70 means that the time gap between early retirement at 62 and full retirement has been increased from four to eight years. This assumes it would still be possible to take early retirement at age 62. If the agency keeps its benefit structure in place, it no longer can afford to pay a person 75 percent of their FRA benefit if they elect to begin receiving the benefit at age 62. Instead, that "value neutral" payment at age 62 will fall to about 57 percent of the full benefit. In dollar terms, a 62-year-old early retiree due $1,000 a month at his or her FRA would receive $800 a month if the FRA was 65, $700 a month if it was 67, and $565 a month if it was 70.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:21 AM

126. Eliminate the cap..

says this retiree; I'm already on SS and Medicare, but I have friends and relatives who would be harmed by futzing with the age criteria; all of you young whippersnappers coming up behind probably worked even harder than I did to acquire these resources, and I say very advisedly that it would be, or should be, criminal to tamper with such important safety nets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #126)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:14 AM

139. Scrapping the cap is the fairest way to make SS solvent

Here's some info from StrengthenSocialSecurity.org -- copyright-free, meant for distribution.

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/Scrap%20the%20Cap%20Fact%20Sheet%202012%20Version%20Post%20TR%202012.pdf



Scrapping the Payroll Tax Cap is the Fairest Way to Make Social Security Solvent for the Next 75 Years

Social Security payroll tax contributions are only paid on wages up to $110,100 in 2012, with employees and employers contributing equally (though the employer contribution is deductible for income tax purposes). Just 6 percent of the population has wages above that cap. While the vast majority of Americans must make payroll tax contributions on all of their wages, millionaires and billionaires only do so on the first $110,100 of their earnings this year. Scrapping the cap so that all earnings are subject to the payroll tax would come very close to closing Social Security’s entire projected 75-year funding gap. Congress scrapped the cap on payroll tax contributions to Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund in 1993. It’s time for Congress to do the same for Social Security.

Below are examples of proposals to eliminate the cap with government estimates of savings:

Eliminate the cap but do not count additional earnings toward benefits. Social Security’s Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) estimates that eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax, while maintaining the cap for calculating benefits so they do not climb higher based on the increased contributions, would provide an additional 2.34 percent in taxable payroll. That would close about 90 percent of the projected funding gap.

Eliminate the cap and count additional earnings toward benefits, per Rep. Deutch’s proposal. Rep. Ted Deutch’s (D-FL) “Preserving Our Promise to Seniors Act,” H.R. 5834, would subject all earnings above the cap to Social Security taxes and count a small portion of earnings above the cap toward benefits. This would provide Social Security with an additional 2.16 percent in taxable payroll, closing 80 percent of the entire projected funding gap, according to OCACT.

Eliminate the cap and count additional earnings toward benefits using current formula. Eliminating the cap on earnings while crediting those additional earnings towards benefits, as under current law, would provide Social Security with an additional 1.9 percent in taxable payroll. This would close about 70 percent of the projected funding gap.

Eliminate the cap on employers and raise it modestly on employees. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has proposed, as President Jimmy Carter did, to scrap the cap on the employer’s contribution. Schakowsky also has proposed to raise the wage cap on employees so that it would cover 90 percent of a worker’s earnings, as was previously the case, but is no longer because wage growth at the high end grew so much faster than average wages in recent decades. This approach would address more than half of the projected shortfall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #139)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:40 AM

142. IF we choose to address it now, which we don't have to do.


We're supposed to be freaking out about the deficit, ans SS is an unrelated issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #142)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:00 AM

147. there's that keen sense of the obvious :)

spot on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:30 AM

127. I'm 62 and don't know how many work years I have left in me

I am trying for 65 in order to get medicare. I won't make it until 70. I'm really glad these assholes are in such good health that they can work until 90, but I'm not one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ribrepin (Reply #127)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:18 PM

258. I made it to 64 before they got me for age discrimination!

It was a set-up from the word GO. I was the only person in the department who wasn't trained on the new computer system.

It happens. I was 64 when that happens. It didn't escape my attention...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:41 AM

128. BETRAYED was the word that leaped to mind.

LIVID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:56 AM

132. Raising the age is discriminatory, and is bad underwriting

Minorities and people in physically demanding jobs have a shorter lifespan; that is a factor I have rarely seen mentioned on TV.

WRT underwriting, lowering the age would create more recipients, but there would also be a greater number of healthier people contributing premiums to support the oldest and sickest members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:04 AM

133. A high retirement age hurts those who need SS the most.

And those who the SS tax has hurt the most during their working years. It is just a ruse to help the rich avoid paying their fair share.

Anyways I certainly spent a good number of years in hard jobs like line worker and tree worker. My knees hurt, my shoulder hurts, and my elbows and hands don't quite work right anymore. Since I have stopped doing that work I have gotten fat so raising the SS age will just be theft in my case.

After paying into this SS since 1978 I will be very very mad at any political party that has a hand in stealing my money and my life. Even the lesser of two evils won't be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aandegoons (Reply #133)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:47 AM

144. also, raising the age, would cut the benefits for everyone...

http://news.yahoo.com/big-downside-raising-retirement-age-165049656.html


Social Security benefits are pegged so that a person reaching what the agency calls its "full retirement age" (FRA) is entitled to his or her full benefit. People retiring at the earliest age, which is now 62, gets about 75 percent as much money each month from Social Security as if they waited until their FRA--66 for those now approaching retirement. It's also possible to defer taking Social Security until age 70, when the monthly benefit would be about 132 percent of what it is at age 66. This benefit structure was designed to be dollar-neutral to Social Security. Looking at longevity data and past decisions of beneficiaries, the agency figured that it will pay out the same amount of money regardless of when people elect to begin receiving benefits.

Raising the retirement age from 66 to 70 means that the time gap between early retirement at 62 and full retirement has been increased from four to eight years. This assumes it would still be possible to take early retirement at age 62. If the agency keeps its benefit structure in place, it no longer can afford to pay a person 75 percent of their FRA benefit if they elect to begin receiving the benefit at age 62. Instead, that "value neutral" payment at age 62 will fall to about 57 percent of the full benefit. In dollar terms, a 62-year-old early retiree due $1,000 a month at his or her FRA would receive $800 a month if the FRA was 65, $700 a month if it was 67, and $565 a month if it was 70. These calculations were made by Nancy J. Altman, co-director of Social Security Works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:42 AM

143. Bastards better not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:39 AM

153. it would put me well into the nothing left to lose territory.

I really don't want to end up going there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:56 AM

154. How would you feel if a supposed "Democrat" even suggested the above.

After all, this is supposed to be OUR Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #154)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:53 PM

159. and...can we trust our party to hold the line on this

...assuming the proposal doesn't come from our side of the aisle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:12 PM

156. I just turned 64 today

I would be LIVID if they raised the Medicare age. I quit working last year since I worked with the developmentally disabled and pushed wheelchairs, lifted to change diapers, etc. I was very, very fortunate that I never hurt myself, and not just at my age. I "was" 5'2" and 105 lbs. The last year that I worked my weight when down to 97 lbs. I know from living in this body this long, that if my weight goes down below 100 lbs, that I am going to get sick. So many people said to me they didn't know how I was able to do all this physical work, and not just at my age, but at my SIZE. I have no health insurance and the $500 a month it would cost through my husband's employer plan is way beyond our means.

Oh, maybe I should RE-TRAIN to work in an office, at my age? Or even better, start my OWN business? Yeah, right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #156)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:58 PM

161. happy birthday!

i can definitely see myself needing to quit working in early 60s...and the last thing you want to be doing is starting a business with age and health issues, let alone the issue that it's damn expensive to start a business, and it doesn't make sense to spend the nest egg on something that might not fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:34 PM

158. About the same as I do now.

I've already pretty much resigned myself to the reality of having to pay more and receive less from SS years ago. If it even still exists. Right now, in the calm middle before climate change truly starts opening some eyeballs, it does seem a bit honorable to pay more to support those who truly got the most. Cheap education & housing, cheap energy, lavish lifestyles supporting the stock market and creating the majority of the pollution that is going to make those of us unlucky enough to be alive in another 40 years truly appreciate the gifts we were given. Dwindling food sources, massive famine, acidic oceans and new and interesting weather patterns with a bit of austerity thrown in because we'll be living so much longer in the debt free, tree free, future we are blessed with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:09 PM

162. I'd feel robbed, a witness to class theft

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

166. Unsurprised.

And it won't be just the right doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:51 PM

167. Raising the age is ok for some worker classes. All workers should have the option to

retire at 62, but benefits should be indexed to the worker class that each person spend most of the working career in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:34 PM

169. ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #169)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:53 PM

170. Heck yeah, WillyT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:30 PM

174. The word you used

betrayed would fit for me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalynn (Reply #174)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:28 PM

184. wondering also, given how negatively we feel about it, what are we willing to do?

I know there's a lot of organizing going on around this right now. AFL-CIO is out in front, but they aren't the only group with a campaign going.

there's a petition to sign on their website, if you're so inclined:

http://act.aflcio.org/c/18/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=5062

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #184)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:22 PM

239. Thanks. I will sign.

I am surprised we are not hearing more from AARP by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:53 PM

176. Where was all this outrage when they did raise the SS age?

It is now being moved from age 65 to age 67, and all I heard was crickets.

I was outraged, I was ready to take the the streets, I expected a revolution......I got nothing.

So why do I expect people to fight for this in the future???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #176)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:11 PM

178. i think a lot has changed since 1983.

For one, there's a progressive infrastructure that's at it's peak performance post-election. There's a vibrant coalition of partners fighting this. There's the culture of social media, and presumably a progressive president, a Dem majority in the Senate with a wave of new progressive activist senators. There's the culture of Occupy, which I think can mobilize fairly quickly.


There's lots more on our side now than there was then. I was a campus organizer in '84 -- it was a sad state of affairs. Times are MUCH different now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:10 PM

177. Your full retirement age is already 67

Realistically, how many people are going to have private insurance at age 65, unless they are still employed full time?

It's getting really hard to get and keep a full-time job.

It's not a matter of how we would all "feel". It's a matter of whether most people could possibly cope, and since I think they couldn't, we obviously can't raise the age for Medicare.

But the age for SS has already been raised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #177)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:14 PM

180. True, and very realistic!

 

People over 50, and especially over 60 have more health concerns than those in their 30's!

Why would any private insurance company offer affordable insurance to a 65 year old?

We should be making health insurance for anyone for profit an illegal enterprise in the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #177)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:16 PM

181. indeed -- most people don't realize this. also, you're able to take a percentage of bennies

before "full retirement age." even more people aren't aware of this. and the percentage of benefits you get at 62, 65 or 66 completely depends on the definition of "full retirement age." So, raising the age cuts the benefits for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #181)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:29 PM

185. Exactly - it's really a closet cut

It's a way to cut SS benefits without saying you're cutting them.

People aren't going to have their "real" jobs working 35-40 hours a week with insurance at 66. If they have savings, they may be able to hold out for a couple of years to get full retirement benefits.

Like so many American policies, this one is grossly discriminatory toward poor people. People without savings will be forced to take the cut, but nobody really cares about the poor any more.

It isn't even going to save much money - the people who would have gotten 1K a month will wind up getting less and then will get food stamps and so forth to supplement. People are so dumb that they jump at this without even sitting down and figuring out that it won't actually do fiscally what the program is supposed to do.

The whole thing is a farce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:13 PM

179. Betrayed

Frankly I expect it to happen. The people making the laws are not manual/physical laborers and a few more years for them is no big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #179)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:20 PM

182. so...what would you be willing to do about it?

i should be asking this upthread as well, because i'm genuinely interested. would the threat of this be enough to join an action? makes some calls? visit your senator's office?

All these things will be taking place in short order. and folks need to be ready to act.

Here's a good resource, but I know there's others with more up to the minute action information. will try to dig some up.

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #182)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:39 PM

193. Thank you for the link

And yes, I would be willing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #179)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:26 PM

183. AFL-CIO is doing an organized effort -- sign the petition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #183)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:02 PM

199. done

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:40 PM

194. Raising the age is a child mind solution

 

like so many above have posted it makes more sense to lower the minimum age when health care kicks in.
Here is the deal,if they steal from SS and medicare-aid then they can keep their tax cuts.
That's it! That is the reason for such an idiotic idea.
The Cromagnons who slouch around in italian leather upholstered chairs all day reading Wall Street Journal and Barrons are at war against those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and their heads up their ass,Why?

Because the working class dog wants to be more than self sufficient,he wants a slice of that multi million dollar yearly bonus and some of those record profits,that he/she worked his/her ass off to make that fortune. That is why.

'How dare you scum bags,try to reach for some of my pie,you were not handpicked by god himself,now get out of my office and off of my lawn'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rain Mcloud (Reply #194)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:57 PM

196. we have a messed up way of thinking about work -- i mean, working people KNOW the product/service

wouldn't make it to market without every single person on the chain. we know that b/c we feel it when people are laid off.

WE'RE the ones adding the value to the product. We break our backs. We give up weekends. We sacrifice constantly in a an environment of toxic relationships, rivalries and threatened obsolescence.

It's time we realized that the unnecessary people are the CEOs and Executive boards. No one deserves 2,000% the salary of the median income of any one employee. If there's that much profit -- especially if you're a privatized public service like healthcare -- then there's some money that needs to be put back into the workers, the product, or cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:53 PM

195. LOWER IT TO 60 and take the income cap OFF

The best defense is a good offense. We need to stop begging and start demanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #195)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:59 PM

197. just commented upthread that we have a lot more power than we realize

it IS time to DEMAND.

Also, upthread I've been sending folks to the AFL-CIO petition, and urging people to call their senators. The action will be in the Senate on this, and they need to know how we're not having it.


Here's the AFL petition:

http://act.aflcio.org/c/18/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=5062

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #197)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:24 PM

215. Thanks for the link. Signed it! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:00 PM

198. Betrayed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ebbie15644 (Reply #198)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:02 PM

200. AFL-CIO is doing an organized effort against this -- sign the petition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #200)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:12 PM

247. signed and I contacted my Senators already!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:11 PM

201. It would be the very thing Obama said he wouldnt do

making the seniors pay for the debt so the Wealthy can avoid paying their fair share. It would be absolutely cruel to ask the poor to wait until 70 to collect. Like a death sentence...just revoke it. Many wont live long enough to collect.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:23 PM

204. What would they do if the 99% just said no and stop working until we got what we wanted

Stay home see just how long this nation can last without us doing all the work. Let the lazy and all around worthless rich pickup there own trash fix their own car and wait on themselves. Want bet just how long it takes before they have a change of heart? That is the best leverage that we have just say NO!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:37 PM

206. Encourage you to persistently document med conditions that effect your work abilities.

Soc Sec Disability Insurance is available for anyone who has paid into the trust fund and is unable to work due to a medical disability.

The key to establishing eligibility is professional documentation.

I agree, the social contract is a keystone relationship between the elected government and the people they represent. It needs to be preserved.

Hope you are well and getting the care you need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:02 PM

210. Lower Social Security Eligibility to 55; Raise Benefits By 15%

Lower Social Security Eligibility to 55; Raise Benefits By 15%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021104200

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #210)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:26 PM

216. Now you're talking!

I was thinking it should be lowered to 60, but 55 is much better--and will lower unemployment tremendously!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:44 AM

218. I'm confused

I get the point that people are living longer nowadays but not everybody is physically able to work beyond a certain point. Why is this even on the table? Because we honestly believe that it's time to make a policy change to the guidelines that govern Medicare and/or Social Security? Or is this just being (potentially) offered as a "sacrifice" to prove to Republicans that, yes, we can "compromise" (even though they clearly cannot and will not)? WTF is wrong with the people demanding some kind of major change to these programs? THEY may be insulated from any changes they make but these people have children and grandchildren whom will eventually be affected. Do they REALLY not care about them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #218)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:25 AM

219. What amount a year is the largest amount someone receives from their SS a year?

 

My point is- let's say we can secure an amount for everyone to save/get/make that is larger per year, every year FOR ANY TAXPAYER right now, today, in the pocket.

Let's say health care becomes cheaper or by having some great system like the French do where they pay a little more in taxes NOW, but through their entire life, they get sick, go to hospital, get cured and get NO BILLS whatsoever. All they get is better.
And then go back to work, pay again a little more in taxes and pass it forward.

In effect, a taxpayer will be saving maybe a million dollars in hospital bills or more over the course of their life and without those expensive health care premiums to the insurance companies, month by month people are saving ACTUAL MONEY. (while only paying a few dollars a month in taxes more).

That is actual savings x12 months a year x every year of their life from day one til they retire
(where then social security would still be there, but they would be so much richer over the course of their entire life anyhow.)

This in effect would be the great equalizer. Because everyone is equal in getting sick. Nobody rich or poor gets out of the world alive or without a health problem sometime in their life.

Now, if it takes a little word dealing to achieve this, I say go for it.
And let's not think about OH they won't give us the other part, let's mope and whine about negatives instead of positives.

I trust President Obama as he has not proved otherwise, to know what he is doing and his people know what they are doing.
And his historic moving forward on health care in 2009 is now the law, is not even implemented yet til 2014, and already he and democrats are thinking and moving it even more forward without it being in the public forefront at this time.

And let the republicans sell their talking points and even let them think they may achieve something. At the end of the day the fat cats will still live their lives then die. They will not get out of this life alive. But in the end, America will be better tomorrow because of President Obama and his looking 7 or 9 steps ahead, not just what the rightwing media is tossing us in today's news.

OUR children and grandchildren indeed will be better off thanks to President Obama and OUR work electing him thousands of times over in the coming decades and all.

YES we do really care about them, and like the movie "Lincoln" showed, allowing the other side to think they are in on it, will make it that much easier to pass more through they won't even be aware of, even if we have to have a sleight of hand to do just that.

IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #218)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:10 AM

229. people aren't living longer -- that's a Wall St myth: why do rich guys want to raise retirement age?

Fewer infants are dying, which skews the numbers. If you look at a graph of earners in the bottom 50%, life expectancy has creeped up only MONTHs since 1977. "Months," not years.



Here's a good article by Ezra Klein digging into the question of

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/21/why-rich-guys-want-to-raise-the-retirement-age/


Why rich guys want to raise the retirement age?

You know what age most people actually begin taking Social Security? Sixty-five is what most people think. That’s the law’s standard retirement age. But that’s wrong. Most people begin taking Social Security benefits at 62, which is as early as the law allows you to take them.

When they do that, it means they get smaller benefits over their lifetime. We penalize for taking it early. But they do it anyway. They do it because they don’t want to spend their whole lives at that job. Unlike many folks in finance or in the U.S. Senate or writing for the nation’s op-ed pages, they don’t want to work till they drop.

As Peter Diamond, the Nobel laureate economist and Social Security expert, told Dylan Matthews:

What do we know about the people who retire at 62? On average, shorter life expectancy and lower earnings than people retiring at later ages. If anyone stood up and said, “Instead of doing uniform across the board cuts, let’s make them a little worse for people who have shorter life expectancies and lower earnings,” they’d be laughed at. Anything that reduces benefits is going to hurt everybody. It’s going to hit people with short life expectancies, it’s going to hit people with high life expectancies. But we should not make it worse for those retiring earliest.


That’s what’s galling about this easy argument. The people who make it, the pundits and the senators and the CEOs, they’ll never feel it. They don’t want to retire at age 65, and they don’t have short life expectancies, and they’re not mainly relying on Social Security for their retirement income. They’re bravely advocating a cut they’ll never feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #229)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:15 PM

242. Eleven percent of the Baby Boomers are already

Dead. They have certainly done their share of helping the Elite see to it that no one gets the reward of Social Security checks.

I very much appreciate your graph.

I know that cancer is more than making up for the "life extension" that would have come about due to lifestyle changes that enable people to avoid heart disease. Anyone reading the obituary pages sees that about half the people that die each day are dying due to being old - and the other half are people in their thirties, forties or fifties who has died from cancer. (And usually people who die much younger, say in their teens or twenties, die from accidents.)

But a lot of the people who get cancer have no say in that. If you are poor, or a minority, you are going to live closer to nasty things like incinerators, etc. So you can try and be healthier, but if the air you breathe and the water you drink contain toxins, what do you do? There 's not much that can be done to avoid eating and drinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:18 AM

221. How would I feel? Dead.

I am sick as a dog. Feet so swollen I can't walk on them. Thyroid out of control and losing 5 lbs a week, down 2 jean sizes in 3 weeks.

But, I can't go to the hospital. After a year of hunting for an affordable home, I have one under contract to close on Dec. 17th. If I go to the hospital and rack up medical debt, my debt to income ratio will be blown out of the water and I'll lose the home.

I told my daughter yesterday that I feel like I'm running a foot race in syrup.

I'm exhausted.

But, if I can hang on 5 more years, I'll get Medicare.

Then I won't have to choose between a home and my health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:39 AM

223. Betrayed, enraged, furious

There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics. The statistics about life expectancy are out of date. By that I mean that the *current* age expectancy is based on people who lived healthier lives than our society currently fosters. Just off the top of my head:

Increased infant and early childhood due to prenatal care and vaccinations survival skews the statistics toward longer expectancy.

The obesity epidemic we always read about is going to hit life expectancy big-time when all those obese and already diabetic people hit old age. The front of that tidal wave is already midlife or older.

People who were irradiated and poisoned by numerous toxins in the air, water, soil, and food in utero and in early childhood, during their developmental years, are only just now reaching their older years when the cumulative debilitating effects are likely to start showing up.

Increasing antibiotic resistance and potential epidemics of emerging "superbugs" sooner or later will start taking a toll.

Personal, I expect to see the beginnings of a decline in expectancy with my generation.

In the meantime, I've paid in over 35 years, including all that extra FICA that was supposed to pay for my generation in advance, and not only seen my "full" retirement age get pushed back 1 year, but my once projected "full" retirement estimate get pushed back 5 years. I can *barely* make it through a full work day now. No way I can work until I'm 70.

Finally, EVEN IF ANY NEW CHANGES DON'T HURT ME DIRECTLY, I DO NOT WANT YOUNG PEOPLE COMING BEHIND TO WATCH ANY GENERATION GET SCREWED, IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY COULD RIGHTLY LOSE FAITH AND DECIDE TO BLOW THE WHOLE SYSTEM APART.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:00 AM

225. Pissed

I have been working and paying into the system for 32 years but I have several years to go before I hit the current max of 66.

They want us to die off before we can reap the benefits of WHAT WE PIAD FOR.

Fuck 'em. I will fight this with all my might.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:55 AM

233. Betrayed,

... angry, and vengeful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:19 PM

243. It makes me worry about my brothers

They are in their forty's, work hard labor, and don't have retirement accounts. I guess I should be worried for myself and my husband as well. We have a retirement account but don't have nearly enough money in it. We're in our thirties. Something better change for us soon or we will be in the same boat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #243)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:52 AM

244. i don't know anyone with a "serious" retirement fund

a couple of my friends have $5,000 here and there, but mostly we live paycheck to paycheck, spending every bit we have, and maybe saving a bit in case of unemployment.

having enough to retire on requires inheriting the wealth of your rich uncle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:04 PM

246. Are you smarter than a US Congressman? I think we all are- why are we waiting on them?

 


WE the people won this election and We the PEOPLE need to start making the decisions.

Clearly they are motivated by selfish greedy sociopathic desires, but we are talking about allowing them to screw our grandmothers, and the future generations out of everything that our ancestors worked for.

This is unacceptable and why we must take charge here and provide Congress with a list of acceptable cuts

Half a Billion for Drones to Spy on US? WE should tell politicians where the $$ cuts will be made
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:49 PM

248. Betrayed is not the word

It would be a devastating blow for people like you who are already not in good shape physically to even think about making it to 65 and also a blow for those who have worked so hard all their life that deserve social security. Its definitely an issue to be concerned about...it will affect us all at some point if we live to see the day. Who knows if that happens if they raise the minimum age? Yikes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:35 PM

254. This is a great thread and glad to see it back on the front page

I'm doing a video on this very issue and you would not believe the number of Democrats I've collected in video clips, stating their willingness to compromise on SS & Medicare. And it starts with the leaders of our party.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:43 PM

255. What you mean if, Kemosabe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:57 PM

256. We are already betrayed and suckered.

We get austerity no matter what. We get more validation from Democrats of sick, vicious, lying corporate propaganda no matter what. And we get a continuation of 99.9 percent of the devastating and impoverishing status quo no matter what.

We are thoroughly propagandized to celebrate our "victory" if we can merely beg our corporate Masters to withhold this or that additional blow, while the larger beatings continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:13 PM

257. LIVID would be an understatement! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread