Bob Kerrey (D-NE) unveils plan to shore up Social Security

"But .. But ... that'll make the program a "WELFARE" program (e.g., slowing future benefits for high earners) and will hurt people that already investing (e.g., pushing back eligibility age for people born 7 years ago).

When everyone is guaranteed employment through the eligibility age we can discuss raising it.

I also think we should tie Congressional pay raises to Social Security COLAs - say Congress can't vote themselves more than 1/2 the percent Social Security receipients get.

Make full benefits available only after an individual reaches the age of 99.

People are living longer. And this encouragement might help the health of the nation by ensuring that now, everyone is motivated to live a long time!

<sarcasm thing-ee for those who don't know me.)

After all the welfare of the poor, elderly and disabled matters to me atleast.

You find that appealing, really? A retirement age minimum that is .7 years longer than the life expectancy of some groups of citizens?
. http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3733

but did you read where the 69 year old minimum retirement age would not be reached for another 62 years? Might there be advances in the life expectency age over the next 6 decades?

But if you are arguing for a reduction in the minimum retirement age, I can go for that ... as it'll (likely) encourage people to retire early and break the Baby Boomer employment log jam.

upon reaching age 67. That might be 78-80 years old for AA males - I made that number up, but the point is that it is much higher than 69.7.

will stagnate instead of it's continued increase in the decades to come due to global warming. I'd like to see a beefier fix rather and also longer than just the next 75 years.

So many places that offset could come from in our Roman Empire.

-p

In some low-income areas of the US the trend is actually negative! In much of the rest of the US, it was only from 0 to 2.5 years increase in the 20 years from 1987 to 2007.

Well, adjusted for the new info, things are going to get pretty fucked up. Along with water shortages are food shortages and a whole host of other things we can't see yet, life expectancy seems to be headed for decline.

Just a thought.

-p

How about raising the goddam cap?

and if done correctly will eliminate the need for the other points.

can't even do that one little thing.

The most successful government program in history, and the right wing owned media simply won't tell it.

Those among them with parents not yet old enough for Social Security who lost their jobs and homes in recent years are already getting screwed. That is because when parents or family in the canyon between joblessness and Social Security qualification don't get benefits, the kids have to pay to support their parents.

That is putting a lot of financial strain on a growing number of young families. It is especially difficult if a parent in that canyon becomes seriously ill -- or ill at all because they usually can't afford health insurance if they aren't working.

Unless the economy improves and there are more jobs for older workers (as well as young ones), more and more young families and their parents will feel the pinch. It is very painful for a parent to have to come begging to his or her kids for money.

More recently, Kerrey has said the main obstacle to entitlement reform is the “presupposition that people over 65 can't take the truth. People are afraid of them. ... We need to get people over 65 to look at people under 40, who, right now, are going to get screwed. They are going to get less than they were promised. We need to ask the grandparents, does that bother them?”

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120730/NEWS/707309929/1707#bob-kerrey-unveils-plan-to-shore-up-social-security

Raising the retirement age and reducing benefits will not help working people under 40. Raising taxes on the 1% will help working people across America get by until the economy improves.

That would be, once again and to yet another problem, the most effective solution.

If you don't have the courage to raise taxes on the very rich, and you decide instead to withhold Social Security benefits from people until way long after they have been fired based on their age or have had to stop working for health reasons, you had better be able to insure appropriate work for seniors still able to work.

Kerry's plans are based on studies of the numbers. They do not deal with the problems that older people face in the workplace.

The penalties for age discrimination in the workplace are far too weak. In fact, it is so cheap to violate age discrimination laws and do what you want that the laws are of no use at all to many older people.

And employers should be REQUIRED to retrain older workers on new technology and REQUIRED to retain older workers in "re-organizations" of their businesses.

Retirement at 65 is the expectation we grew up with and were promised. Face it. Bush stole from the Social Security Trust Fund and Congress does not have the courage to face the fact that it has to raise taxes on the super-rich campaign donors in order to repay the fund plus the interest that was stolen from it through LIBOR and FED manipulation.

Just would not do it.

Many, many seniors get less. I know people receiving $500 per month.

The Social Security Trust Fund got lots of money from Baby Boomers and the government wasted it.

The LIBOR scandal which kept interest rates so low in recent years has contributed to the appearance of lack in the Social Security Trust Fund. That is because the Social Security Trust Fund buys US bonds of a certain kind. With Geithner, Bernanke and the banks artificially lowering the interest rates, the amount in the Social Security Trust Fund has been reduced.

The LIBOR scandal is about the Social Security Trust Fund as well as the interest rates paid to small savers.

So, let the rich who made money from the LIBOR scandal repay the Social Security Trust Fund by imposing higher taxes on them.

This is only one thing that could be done.

More evidence that the "problem" is nonexistent: Obama lowered the amount of money that are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund in payroll taxes. If there truly were a concern about Social Security's fiscal soundness, the payroll taxes would not have been cut.

You must know that Geithner was appointed to the NY Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson.

This, from the Huffington Post (and I have read the original article announcing Geithner's appointment).

According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts. Peterson's millions have done next to nothing to change public opinion: In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare. A recent national tour organized by AmericaSpeaks and largely funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation was met by audiences who rebuffed his proposals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/peter-peterson-foundation-half-billion-social-security-cuts_n_1517805.html

Kerry is solving a problem that does not exist and merely mouthing the right wing propaganda of Pete Peterson. That is not the way to get Democrats elected. Bob Kerry has been a lousy Democrat in the past.

There is a spread for LIBOR relative to Fed funds, which can be reflective of banking sector stress. Artificially lowering LIBOR may have given the false impression of banking health during the crisis and savers would have gotten lower rates - that said LIBOR-fed fund spread is still historically high, so it is really the fed funds keeping rates low. Wanna raise fed funds rates and knock the economy down?

Bob Kerry is responding to a call from Pete Peterson, a right-wing foe of Social Security.

There is plenty of money for Social Security.

The LIBOR scandal is in part about taking money away from Social Security by artificially keeping interest rates low including the interest rates that would normally be paid on the US Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund.

The right hates Social Security. Bob Kerry is a fool to be responding to the bogus fears about Social Security being raised by these greedy right-wingers.

Let's focus on jobs. If there is more competition for jobs, wages rise, and so do the funds contributed to Social Security which are a percentage of the total wages paid across the country.

This is just another right-wing distraction. Fear-mongering is what it is.

when the baby boom generation passes on

Then the government will be raiding the trust fund for
military spending

and the Federal Budget deficit will shrink when
more people are employed

All this hubbub about deficits is short term thinking

He slashed incomes taxes, the raised SS taxes 2%. I'm not sure when the retirement age was increased but it was probably Reagan-Bush as well. Since then, we've borrowed the entire trust fund that was built up in the interim and given it away as tax cuts to the wealthy. They will do the same fucking thing this time.

Fuck them. If Social Security goes broke, raise income taxes to pay back what's been stolen from it.

He lowered the amount of taxes that have to be paid into the Social Security Trust Fund by lowering the payroll taxes very recently.

This is a lot of todo about nothing.

I think Sen Sanders favors doing this: i.e. raising the cap, so that
many more higher income people will need to pay more into SS.

Why would you not support that? .. or am I missing something
here?


ON EDIT: I do NOT support raising the age of eligibility however, so
I agree with you on that.

will not solve.

The baby boomers are leaving a Social Security Trust Fund that is flush with money. The banks are keeping interest rates low in part to weaken the Trust Fund by paying low interest on government bonds.

Baby boomers have kept their aging parents in style with their contributions to Social Security plus put in enough money to cover themselves.

If the economy is so hopeless that you have to cut Social Security, then there isn't much hope for anyone.

If Social Security were destroyed tomorrow, you would have to invent something else to replace it. The elderly have to be cared for. That is the duty of children whose parents spend their best years providing for and caring for their children. Remember the Commandment, "Honor thy parents." There is no Commandment ordering parents to honor their children -- and for a reason. That is because parents, as a rule, adore their children and do not want to see them suffer or lack for anything.

We are all in this life together, old and young. You would be surprised at how children suffer when they visit their dying parents.

Raising the cap if a good idea, but cutting benefits in this time of job shortages and low wages is just stupid. It won't help anything other than to put a lot of seniors and people who are too young for Social Security into bankruptcy and on the welfare and food stamp roles. Except for raising the cap, Kerry's idea won't work. It may sound like a nice "compromise," but it isn't because it is unrealistic.

People like Kerry hang out with the rich -- their campaign donors. They have the mistaken impression that seniors are flush with money and taking lots of cruises. That is a lie. Seniors are suffering just as their children are. The kids need the jobs. If you do away with Social Security, who will provide jobs for seniors?

never made any sense to me how those with $650 Social Security payments
get 2.2% more while those with $2000 Social Security payments get 2.2% more too!

The one gets $44 more, the other $13 more.

Why not just make it a flat $25 increase for all, or something like that?

What I don't get is why Kerrey would say "Any solution that draws a round of applause is the wrong one,”

I can imagine MANY people who would readily applaud his approach to SS reform.


ON EDIT: What I was applauding was the "raising the cap" part, the rest, not so much.
Thanks for understanding.

I'm looking at this with a disgusted look as Kerrey wraps the good in a shroud of anti worker shite.

I posted without reading the other stuff, which I'm not liking very much.

Just raise the freaking cap to bring it all into balance and solvency forever..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/peter-peterson-foundation-half-billion-social-security-cuts_n_1517805.html

Geithner was appointed to the NY Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson. Geithner is a Pete Peterson kind of guy.

I question whether Obama really cares about Social Security. He pays it lip service but HAS REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF PAYROLL TAX THAT IS NOW COLLECTED.

If there really were a problem, do you think that Obama would have reduced the amount of payroll taxes that have to be paid into the Social Security Trust Fund?

I should hope not, not unless Obama is trying to cause a crisis.

Sometimes I feel I am being held hostage by Team Obama,

"hey, if you don't like US, check out what the Republicans
are going to do. Do you want Rmoney to appoint Grover Norquist
to the Supreme Court?" .. or some such.

Kerry is yet another corporate Dem too eager to compromise with the powers that be. The right fixes to SS, which would not hurt the vulnerable, would get a great round of applause from the people. But that's not his audience. His audience is beltway players, and they'll only applaud solutions that hurt the needy.

SS was and should be again absolutely fine. Raising the cap is a good fix. Raising the eligibility age is not. What kind of work are pre-eligibles supposed to go out and get in their 60's? Many of them have already lost their jobs. Who will hire them to work until they're 69? Productivity is up, less workers (and WAY less U.S. workers) are needed to produce goods, older people have more health care demands. Raising the eligibility age is terrible, we need to lower it, for real.

The ground of raising the eligibility age has been very thoroughly prepared by the powers that be. How many times have we heard people in the MSM or in government spouting stats about how much longer people are living now? How many of those times were their stats balanced by the actual relevant measurement, which is how long people live once they reach the age to where they're paying into SS? Much of the increase in longevity comes from children not dying, and it is also heavily skewed by wealth. The wealthy are living much longer, the rest of us, not much. The rationalization for raising the eligibility age is a bogus argument, but is rarely confronted, even by Dems. Sad.

I was so excited to see a Dem. (other than Sanders) speaking for raising the cap,
that I posted without reading the "other stuff", which I'm not liking all that much.

Just raise the freaking cap to bring it all into balance and solvency forever..

The only enemy Social Security has is the GOP and it's enablers like the folks who have ripped off the Trust Funds. At present those who are it's so called leaders are just a group of men and women with little leadership skills.

There is no need to increase social security income, because all the "extra" that is supposed to be stashed for that 75-year away retiree, will just get stolen again, and then when it is time for them to collect, it will all be blamed on the retirees again.

Over 2 Trillion is owed, but since they "borrowed" it and now have to pay out more than is coming in because of the lousy economy, it's being blamed on the retiree! Incredible!

please people educate yourself on this....there is nothing wrong with SS as it is right now...Bob Kerrey is full of feces ,poor Nebraska,what a liar they have there...fiat currency means the US can print unlimited dollars.thats #1...like they never run out of money for bullets,missiles bank bailouts etc. 2nd the treasury backs SS...if the treasury is broke (impossible see #1) they could not sustain the wars...we are about to start a few more...Syria ,Iran...wake up peeps....its your $$$

BK....kiss my assCott

SS is fully funded for the next twenty years as predicted and the surplus should be spent down as it was intended to be.

Cuts in SS should not be made in a panicked setting of another phony "budget emergency" or "deficit emergency". This plan, like Simpson-Bowles, means cuts which ultimately subsidize wealthy Americans.

We need to start learning the word "no".

and show that he is not "tied to Obama." No one cares.

As much as we need his seat, we won't get it, and nothing Kerrey says matters in the slightest.

Who woulda thunk it?

Social Security is fine unless the economy stays as bad as it currently is for 25 years. If it goes back to anywhere near its traditional health, then there is zero problem. Zero.

How about these Third-Way swine focus on unfucking the economy instead of bravely putting old folks on cat food diets? Is that really too much to ask?

Congress has been stealing from it to fund your wars, and that is unacceptable

I don't give a damn whether it is a rethugs or a democrat keep your fucking hand off my annuity

Stop invading countries. Who told you to get rid of regulations, which led to the financial crisis?

Bring back the regulations, oh, and by the way corporations are not people

The poorest folks see a higher percentage of their money withheld. Oh, it's supposed to not be "welfare" or "socialism"? Then why is the GOP railing against it so hard? They even have the nerve to have framed social security as "socialism", but then they don't want it to transfer to poorer folks? WTF?

Why slow cost of living increases for everyone?

According to Williams of ShadowStats, that has already been done to a large extent by manipulating inflation measures. Basically, if the cost of living goes down, the CPI movement was accelerated downward, and if the cost of living increased upward, on individual items, the CPI was slowed. We're going to see more of these accounting shenanigans?

Many of us already know we're not as well off as our parents, and the things our parents could do, are but a memory of much better times--for the entire last 30 years.

Work work work so your suit-and-tie or skirted bosses can get ahead, and take their vacations to exotic locales, buying new cars every few years or leasing, and they'll make sure to trickle some little dribbles down (unless you sequentially keep running into crook bosses like I kept doing), but those dribbles won't be enough to keep a standard of living from grandparent to parent to child!

All the time they keep telling us that the only solution is one that makes everyone unhappy, irregardless of the Declaration of Independence's assertion that our "pursuit of happiness" is an unalienable right. Doublespeak!

a long way toward keeping it solvent. There should be no limit.

MUST we assume Social Security is such a failed structure that it must be 'shored up' ? ...

The editing choices here are instructive .... Make it sound like it is a failed system, and people will believe it ...

Bastards!

I'm 24 and hate work. I want to retire at the same age my parents get to retire.