Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kucinich to Announce a Major Jobs Program (retire in early 60's)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:00 PM
Original message
Kucinich to Announce a Major Jobs Program (retire in early 60's)
Congressman Dennis Kucinich to Announce a Major Jobs Program
Submitted by Eugmc on January 25, 2010 - 3:12pm.



Dennis Kucinich is going to announce a job program that would add one million new jobs. The Cleveland area Congressman will make the announcement on Capitol Hill just hours before President Obama gives his State of the Union speech on Wednesday.

The liberal Democrats plan includes early 60s, can take advantage of Social Security retirement benefits to exit the workforce, making room for younger workers who have been struggling to find jobs.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/12763
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Dude, we already exited the workforce. Involuntarily.
And it starts a lot sooner than the 60s. Try the 40s.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. Making people eligible for SS will shrink the workforce.
Under the right conditions, this will bring wages up and create more opportunities for people below retirement age.

However the "Right Conditions" are hard to meet in this age of Global "free trade" (AKA race to the bottom workforce management). Before we can do anything to restore the middle class through better pay and benefits, we have to protect American labor and renegotiate the "free trade" agreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. lower the age for retirement to 55
how many millions would take advantage of retiring with full social security?
then many of us would be put to work in the jobs where people are holding on into their late 60's.
we'd be paying more into social security and therefore helping sustain it for the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tonysam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. +1,000
And ban WEP/GPO for states opting out of paying SS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Uh? Who would be paying someone 55 at the same SS benefits they would have at 67?
The older the employee, the bigger the salary (in most cases) and the more paid into SS. If somebody retires 'early' today at age 62, they receive 30% less then if they wait until 66. The trust fund would only be able to pay somebody 55 about 50% of their retirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. no, that would be the change. allow people at 55 to get 100%

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. And who's going to pay for it? You realize that as the older workers retire, less and less
is going into SS because of lower salaries and less jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. raise taxes on the wealthy
we have tried giving them tax cuts for years, nothing trickles down, we should just take it from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. By eliminating the SS cap.
SS is effectively a regressive tax. The middle class pays a much higher % of income than the rich in SS taxes. Remove the cap and at least make it flat.

Also at least as an emergency measure, we could make rich people ineligible for SS benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. that's the "solution" the ruling class wants you to choose. because it increases
the tax on labor while allowing capital to continue borrowing surplus SS collections without repaying them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. There is $3 Trillion in the Social Security Trust fund.
Get rid of Rayguns Social Security tax cuts to the uber wealthy and there will be plenty of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Sure there is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. It would bankrupt social security
Adding everyone at 55 who wants to retire - or is retired, would have to increase the cost by at least 50%. Nothing you say adds total jobs that pay into SS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. raise taxes on the wealthy and it would bancrupt nothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. wouldnt the new people who took over their jobs be paying in to SS?
and the rest of the bill could be paid by the government. they can spend trillions to make war and bail out banksters, they can pay a little to save the nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. Yes they would - but that will not even completely replace the amount
from the 55 - 65 year olds leaving the job. The younger people will likely be offered lower salaries because older employers on average have higher salaries. But, assuming they get the exact same amount of money - it is a wash on the money coming in.

Now, they bailed out the bankers to keep the financial system working. Many banks have paid it all back. Obama is now asking for a tax on them to pay back the rest - including the indirect money they got from AIG.

As to war, I agree it is among many things even worse, a waste of money - but, we can't afford continuous war either.

Here, SS is a perpetual system, it has to have the money to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Oh, the poor, poor millionaires!
Eliminate the cap on SS taxes and make the rich ineligible for SS benefits and SS will be solvent forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. It always amazes me how millionaires have gotten the average person
to feel sorry for them. Greatest con job in the history of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. I doubt it
1) eliminating the cap on income will add revenues but not to the extent needed.
2) define rich - I doubt you can be speaking of more than the top 1 or 2% - eliminating that small number will not make up the increase here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. The income of the top 5% richest Americans far exceeds whaqt you imagine.
If that income were subject to SS taxation is would make a huge difference.

http://www.lcurve.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Much of their income is not via wages - the only thing subject to the tax
Capital gains, dividends etc make up a lot of that. But, if you make the change to tax that - more middle class people will have a new tax than the excise tax on the top 3% of all plans - and you saw the outrage on that.

Many others have pointed out that people in that age range with jobs msy not want to retire as they do not have enough money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. In 2004, Bush's tax cuts ALONE let the top 1% keep an extra $30 billion.
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 07:31 PM by Hannah Bell
■The tax cuts will confer more than $30 billion on the nations 257,000 millionaires in 2004 alone.

And the benefits of the Bush tax cuts accelerated for this top 1% over time, i.e. their "savings" were bigger in 2009 than in 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811


cost of the bush tax cuts for the top 5% over 10 years = $978 billion, i.e. about 40% of what's currently owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:A6CpAwWBQswJ:...

Which means that it would be quite easy for this segment of "lucky duckies" to repay that borrowed money over the approximate 30 year window of the boomers' retirement -- simply by raising their taxes back to what they were UNDER CLINTON.

wow, that would be SUCH a hardship for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
39. date the wealthy
elite meeting.com has an ad on top of this page..... is that for real? I guess I should have dated the wealthy if i wanted retirement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. This is the stupedist thing I have heard in a long time.
Well done, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:02 PM
Original message
this post has made some twitchy unreccers very upset...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tonysam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Once again Kucinich grandstands,
and once again his ideas go nowhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. And once again, the magic phrases fly.
Or should I just believe that 50 different posters just decided to all call one of our own a grandstander.

Too bad he's not standing up for bipartisanship and Wall St. like the New Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Is this like your post that Terry Schiavo was murdered? Question, are you a Democrat?
Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. She's a PUMA.
Her blog is both frightening and hilarious. I think she'd find a soulmate in Perry Logan, personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Gack Haven't You Put That Thing On Ignore?
This Schiavo reference tells me all I need to know about "ignored." Your question is a good one, do you think she/he/it will answer it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. No, she emerges every couple days to pollinate threads with semi-right-wing pap
and then lays low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Hates animals, too.
Abhors them, matter of fact. Digging up that one's back yard might be quite the task.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. I retired at 59. Am I more "Progressive" than Dennis the K ? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I 'retired' at 49
Of course, I didn't have much say in the matter. Now to wait until the pension and SS kick in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. I took my SS at age 62, quite a bit less than if I had waited till the
government approved age to end my lifelong wage slavery.
So far, it's been worth every dime.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
18. and what about those over 50 folks who have taken a huge hit on their retirement packages
and cannot retire on SS because they've been out of work as long or longer than some of the younger workers?

Government going to replace our lost funds too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
40. Sure, they can live on SS alone.
Kucinich said so! He has a Miracle Wand!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. Uh, Dennis...
please run the numbers for the impact that would have on SS and other seniors programs.

The problem is NOT that there are too many people working, the problem is that there aren't enough JOBS. Pushing one person out of a job so another can take it is treading water at best. Pushing one person out of a job and putting him on government assistance is moving backwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParkieDem Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
25. Early retirement is not the answer.
I'd love to retire when I'm 50 or 55 or even 60, but when I get there, it's not going to happen. When Social Security was first created, most workers entered the workforce at age 18 (or earlier), retired at 62 or 65, and then lived maybe another 10 years.

Today, many workers do not enter the workforce until age 22 or so. Some people are retiring at age 55 or 60, then living to be 85 or 90. At its extreme, only 1/3 of such a person's life will be spent in some sort of productive economic activity. Like it or not, our extended life expectancies mean that people are going to have to work longer. Either that, or we have to accept a reduced standard of living.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reformist Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
30. Is that his plan? Lowering the retiring age?!

Major FAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
33. We need job creation
And early retirement just isn't in the cards for many workers, many have to work as long as they can to insure a solid retirement. I don't see this opening up many jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC