HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So correct me if I am wro...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:34 PM

So correct me if I am wrong - but Social Security recipients have already

Taken more hits than anyone can imagine.

By allowing the age of recipients to be 67, rather than 65, the older person who needs to retire at the age of 65 will find they have eliminated fourteen percent of their annual payments FOR LIFE, by making that early retirement.

Then there is the little matter of the nation's economic collapse, which wiped out many Americans' retirement monies. There is the fact that many people thought that their pension monies were handled wisely, only to find out that the monies were tied into one or two major financial policies. Often, the financial managers threw the pension monies of a union or state pension plan into stocks involved with only one or two major industries. The reason for that was these managers had estimated that the high returns of the stock they chose was so valuable that considerations of any risk went right out the window.

Now, when the Economic Collapse hit, the value in people's homes was destroyed, and also their pension monies. They might have also taken a lost on any retirement monies they were controlling themselves.

Meanwhile, under the Paulson/Bernnanke/Geithner strategy of helping their friends on Wall Street, we find that some 15 to 16 trillions of dollars went to the Biggest players in the Financial World, some of whom were bankers and financial people not even in this country. I know that many of us here totally understand what is very wrong with this picture, don't we?

Experts tell us that some 4.7 trillions of dollars that these "loans" made by Paulson and Bernanke will never be repaid. So why can't someone in Congress create legislation that captures these monies from these Big Financial People?

Or why can't the President enact an Executive Order such that these monies are captured?

I personally think the Banking Cabal that apparently is ruling this country is equivalent in evil to any 'terrorists" that we spend money having our drones attack. If the nation's officials can see to it that the bank accounts of such rogue and terrorist states as Libya and Iran, and those of the Bin Laden family, are "re-captured" - then why can't we recapture these monies as well?

That 4.7 trillion is actually about .7 trillions dollars more than is being sought as cuts for the nation's budget and deficit situation over the next ten years.

I also am so sick of important matters being done in the wake of lame duck Congressional sessions.
Few of the "Fiscal cliff" issues were discussed during the weeks leading up to the presidential, and congressional elections. All we got from Democratic leadership in the weeks leading up to this past election was the usual "the Democrats are for the middle class." Of course, anyone who realized the words "middle class" were very rarely mentioned, in any of the campaigns, got a strong clue as to what the leadership in both parties is about. And it sure is true that the leadership in both parties is far more concerned about people in the 200K and up class than those who are struggling.

If Congress can allow some weird person who is elected to Congress and serves less than five years a perpetual pension based on those few years, than Congress should damn well be able to allow Social security recipients to get the same things that our fathers and mothers got. And that means benefits that start at age 65, not 67 or older.






43 replies, 3864 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 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply So correct me if I am wrong - but Social Security recipients have already (Original post)
truedelphi Dec 2012 OP
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #1
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #2
truedelphi Dec 2012 #5
Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #8
Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #6
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #10
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #3
truedelphi Dec 2012 #26
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #4
Flatulo Dec 2012 #14
underthematrix Dec 2012 #7
judesedit Dec 2012 #11
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #12
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #32
Skittles Dec 2012 #19
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #33
Skittles Dec 2012 #35
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #38
truedelphi Dec 2012 #21
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #34
truedelphi Dec 2012 #36
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #39
truedelphi Jan 2013 #41
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #42
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #9
truedelphi Dec 2012 #25
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #13
Flatulo Dec 2012 #15
truedelphi Dec 2012 #20
forestpath Dec 2012 #16
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #17
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #18
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #22
Paulie Dec 2012 #24
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #27
Paulie Dec 2012 #28
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #31
truedelphi Dec 2012 #30
Paulie Dec 2012 #40
bluethruandthru Dec 2012 #23
Historic NY Dec 2012 #29
99Forever Dec 2012 #37
Jim Warren Jan 2013 #43

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:50 PM

1. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:56 PM

2. You are not wrong. They have chipping away at that fund for decades now and

this is coming to a point where we have to start organizing to undo the damage already done, not add more to it.

In a way, maybe this latest assault on SS was necessary since people are paying much more attention now to what is going on than ever before.

I know I was not aware of what they were up to when this all happened, nor were most people. But things have changed drastically over the past few years and I am very encouraged to see that millions of Americans are now organizing together to start protecting the Social Safety nets and to undo the harm done already while we were looking the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:15 PM

5. Too bad it is DeFazio alone - without Obama backing him - that

Understands and expounds on all all this:


Obama spends far too much time listening to his overlords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:18 PM

8. What's happened down there at the WH, indeed.

I applause DeFazio and wish there were more people in control who thought like this.

He must feel as if he is tilting at windmills. But I will help him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:11 PM

6. Remember Al Gore's SS lock box?

He was paying attention to this years ago.....and they made him a laughing stock for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:25 PM

10. When feeling cynical

I often think that's when democracy died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:57 PM

3. The charge is building on the third rail

Eventually that charge will build to the point that whoever is close to the rail fucking around is going to get converted to a small pile of not particularly pure carbon and a nasty smell.

The longer it takes the bigger the charge will eventually become and the more inescapable the lightning.

It would really behoove the Democrats to keep away from the danger zone.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:27 PM

26. Many talented people apparently agree with us -

"We got the guillotines!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:12 PM

4. kr. There have been a string of benefit reductions, such as making benefits taxable under

 

reagan & increasing the proportion of benefits that are taxable under clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:04 PM

14. Yep, and if your spouse is still working, your piddly benefit now gets taxed at the rate of

both incomes combined. The marriage penalty hits SS recipients with an additional dinger.

I withhold 25% of my benefit, which is our combined tax bracket, which if we go off the cliff, will still not be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:15 PM

7. yes, you can get your full retirement at 65. I chose to

take mine at 62. It is about $250 less than what I would have gotten at 65. But it pays my rent, car insurance, phone and enough gas money so I can volunteer. It also makes me eligible for some low income programs, such as food stamps, energy assistance and a low income hospital-based healthcare clinic which includes prescription medication. This is because I am the sole support for me and my husband. I do not have cable. We watch eveything on the Internet or in the rec room HDTV. I buy everything used and I mean everything. I happen to love my life. I would not change it for anything. It is a very relaxing stress free life.

I'm a grown up and I stopped believing I could get everything I wanted when I was two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:37 PM

11. That totally depends on what year you were born. I thought I needed mine at 62. It is 50% of what I

would collect at 70, which is $900. less. 75% of what I would collect at 67. I stopped it as soon as I realized I would continue my employment where I was, but they took back from me more than they paid me, which should be against the law. You must have been born in the early 40's. Because it's not like it was when you started anymore. And mine covers only my rent and garbage collection. I have to work to pay my electric, internet, medical alarm, home security, food, gas and anything else. Forget insurance. I use my daughter's car. And I'm not even old enough for Medicare yet. I'm scared to death of the amount they are going to take from me at that time. I won't even have rent money...unless I apply for Section 8 housing. Sad state of affairs. I'd say it basically sucks after working your whole life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:40 PM

12. No you can't. Ret. age was raised to 67.

You know, just cause you had certain rights doesn't mean that today's and tomorrow's retirees have those rights - and they don't.

For anyone born 1960 or later, 67 is our full retirement age. For current retirees it is 66, and for people born between `1955 and 1960, it goes up 2 months each year.

What that means, if you'd like to get real about it, is that the OP'er will get a benefit cut of 30% if the OP'er has to retire at age 62. Welcome to our world.

Your reply ignores the fact that current retirees don't have the option to retire at 62 any more - that option has been taken from us. A $1,000 retirement check would turn into a $700 retirement check. Your blissful ignorance is another's pain, and implying that the OP'er is just being greedy is rather offensive.

Here's the link to prove it:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:03 PM

32. She is simply misusing the term "full retirement"

She states quite clearly that her benefit was reduced by $250. a month, so I think she assumes she has "full retirement" because she is now receiving a regular monthly benefit for the rest of her life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:37 PM

19. we don't get what you got

FYI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:15 PM

33. Actually you do...

well almost. She doesn't understand her own benefit. She states she took a $250 cut, that means she didn't get a "full retirement benefit" If she was born before 1937 her full benefit age would be 65. If she was born in 1942 her full retirement age would have been 65 years and 10 months. If you were born before 1960 and after 1943 your full retirement benefit age will be 66 or 66 and 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 months. You can still retire at age 62, but you cut will be a bit deeper than hers. Born after 1960, full retirement age is 67 and you will take a 30% cut in order to retire at age 62. Not that long ago accountants advised people to retire at age 62 at the reduced benefit, as chances were they wouldn't live long enough to to make up for the income lost between age 62 and full retirement age. Today, because of longer life expectancy, many are now advising to delay retirement as long as one can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:17 PM

35. if you think even the benefits as they are now will be there in the future

you are a very, very optimistic person

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:35 PM

38. I will be 65

in February. I have been collecting my benefits since the age of 62. I can tell you that republicans have been insisting the benefits would not be there, at all, for as long as I can remember... certainly going back to when I was in college. A favorite republican tactic is to stir up generational conflict over SS & Medicare. Used to work much better than it does today. Their 18th century social agenda sends young voters to either the Dems or to Ron Paul Libertarians these days.

The GOP goes on these tears like clockwork...whenever Dems are in the ascendent. When they (the republicans) are in the driver's seat they calm down as neither wants to be the party that ended SS. It's not called the 'third rail' for nothing. So they'll make noises, but not really do anything. If the economy were stronger, the Dems would look to raise the Payroll tax and/or the ceiling, right now too many people are going to feel the pinch of the tax Payroll tax holiday expiring as it is for them to do anything. I wouldn't even worry about the chained CPI...nothing is ever written in stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:55 PM

21. I take it you were born in the forties. For those of

Us born in the nineteen fifties, or later, that is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:16 PM

34. Full retirement at age 65

was for those born before 1938. She doesn't get a "full retirement benefit" she states she took a $250. cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:18 PM

36. Then why is the header to her argument "Full Retirement"

Probably not even worth wasting my breath arguing with someone who thinks "Full Retirement" includes taking a cut.

Oh and Congress just gave themselves a raise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:37 PM

39. Because she doesn't really know what she is talking about.

I left to bake a cake and while I was gone those assholes gave themselves a raise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:09 PM

41. Apaprently your productivity in the kitchen is just further proof of how

Congress is letting us all have decent work to do! So with that productivity in mind, why shouldn't they get a raise!

And mind if you pass a piece of cake my way? it would be so very YUM about right now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:16 PM

42. Pineapple Upside down cake, from scratch.... Enjoy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:21 PM

9. "equivalent in evil to any 'terrorists" That's letting them off too easy.


No terrorist has ever been able to visit that much tragedy on tens of millions of people. And get paid for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:20 PM

25. Yep, and here is a stat gleaned off the internet regarding what has

Already happened to older people:

For people in the 75-90 percentile range, the mean net worth in 2010 was $525K, down from $616K in 2007. The mean value of financial assets held by this group was $233K, down from $254K in 2007. That isn’t all that much money to last 20 or thirty years. ZIRP means that savers get screwed. Bloomberg reports that ZIRP is helping the rich and screwing everyone else, quoting Joseph Stiglitz: “Monetary policy has been indirectly, surreptitiously helping the top and hurting the bottom.” It describes a semi-retired college librarian:

…when he first started an annuity in 2005, his interest rate was 5.25 percent. Now it’s 2 percent, he said. That means that instead of getting a monthly payout of $700, he gets $413.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:52 PM

13. You can retire and still wait before you take full S.S. payments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:11 PM

15. Most people nearing retirement have nowhere near the cash reserves to live with no income for years.

I was lucky enough to earn a fuck-ton of money during my working years, but check out what the mean and median net worth of retirees at retirement are, by income - It's shocking. People are broke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:53 PM

20. Yeah And I can pay for my health insurance

Through the California Health Insurance Exchange Program (Some whopping 1,100 a month! + two separate five thousand deductibles a year) by selling the family yacht.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:15 PM

16. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:32 PM

17. Not to mention that Obama froze SS payments for like 2-3 years

maybe more. 2012 was the first year in awhile that that saw any SS annual cost-of-living increase at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:41 PM

18. He didn't freeze them

That was and has been federal law. SS recipients got a 5.8% COLA, and then the recession collapsed prices, so the inflation index was lower than it had been at that point for two years. That's what happened.

President Obama had nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:12 PM

22. The 1983 Social Security Amendments built in a sliding scale based on birth-year....

The Full Retirement Age Is Increasing

QUOTE:

Full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age") had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.

The 1983 Social Security Amendments included a provision for raising the full retirement age beginning with people born in 1938 or later. The Congress cited improvements in the health of older people and increases in average life expectancy as primary reasons for increasing the normal retirement age.


Plug in what year you were born, and the calculator will tell what your Social Security Benefits percentage will be on a sliding scale.

NOTE: I was not aware of the 1983 SS Amendments until prompted to look it up by this thread.

Additional information:

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:19 PM

24. From the SS site:

Your Full Retirement Age Is 67

Remember, the earliest a person can start receiving Social Security retirement benefits will remain age 62.

If you start receiving retirement benefits at

age 62, you will get 70% of the monthly benefit because you will be getting benefits for an additional 60 months.
age 65, you will get 86.7% of the monthly benefit because you will be getting benefits for an additional 24 months.
If you start receiving benefits as a spouse at your full retirement age, you will get 50% of the monthly benefit your spouse would receive if his or her benefits started at full retirement age. If you start receiving benefits at

age 62, you will get 32.5% of the monthly benefit instead of 50% because you will be getting benefits for an additional 60 months.
age 65, you will get 41.7% of the monthly benefit instead of 50% because you will be getting benefits for an additional 24 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:31 PM

27. ??? Isn't that what I just linked??....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:33 PM

28. Yes, I was agreeing with ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:46 PM

31. Okay! Thanks! nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:38 PM

30. Unfortunately, many people, especiallywomen,

Find themselves living far longer than even the best financial planner had planned for.

It is very sad to try and imagine what happens to someone who is forced to go into retirement at 62, and then they live to 92.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:37 PM

40. Like my mom

She used up her lump sum from her pension, and now just has SS left over. Went up $12 for her this year, but her rent went up $20. And she worked for 20 years at her employer and had to retire per policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:18 PM

23. And it's interesting that members of congress receiving pensions can start getting them at 62. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:35 PM

29. I was happy to get SS disability...

it helped me get above water. I depleted my savings in the time it took 5 yrs to settle it. My monthy pension from the state wouldn't even cover my tax bills. I now have a backup which many people don't have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:24 PM

37. You are correct, they INTEND to...

... rip off our last lifeline, and by they, I mean 99% of the jerks in Washington DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:51 PM

43. Kicked for more input

I need to review this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread