If You Are A Baby Boomer - the real reason YOU SHOULD BE FURIOUS over CPI cuts:

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:48 PM

WillyT (72,631 posts)

1. HUGE K & R !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:51 PM

Scuba (53,475 posts)

Their scenario includes things like average growth of 1%/year......growth over a 20 year window hasn't averaged that low since the 1800s, and that required a 10-year recession to be in the window.

But the important part is even with their doomsday version, they can't manage to make the trust fund broke - the doomsday keeps moving off into the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 09:49 PM

Hestia (3,337 posts)

74. Last I read, this is how the generational population breaks down

Baby Boomers 80,000,000
Gen X 45,000,000
Millennial 84,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Hestia (Reply #74)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:46 AM

TM99 (8,352 posts)

84. And this describes the true situation

with regards to these potential cuts.

Baby boomers, in the end, are going to be just fine. Even with CPI and other cuts, most are in retirement or nearing retirement. Your benefits are there. And I am glad.

The Millennial's are screwed, true that, however, they are young enough to look for savings options or political ones to change things long before they retire.

The ones truly screwed are us Generation X'ers. Most of us are now well into our forties and pushing 50. By the time any serious cuts are made, we will be left with very little. We will not see retirement benefits at 65 and will likely be forced to work possibly a decade longer. And we are too old to get those extra savings necessary for our survival in old age. We are also going to have a generation twice our size at our heels demanding jobs that we are all having a hard time finding. Boomers are already seeing how difficult it has become for those over 50 to get jobs. My generation will experience that in spades in the next decade and a half.

I am not angry at Boomers or Millennials about this situation. I am angry at the politicians on both sides, Democratic and Republican alike, beholden to the corporate 1% who are not just greedy but sociopathically so. I know many Boomers who do care about the generations coming up behind them. I have not met as many Millennials who feel the same as they have gotten so much and expect so much from this technological and socially connected age. This cycle of austerity will not last forever, as no cycle ever does. But will my generation, as small as it is and sandwiched between two others, be able to survive it?

I suppose we shall see what happens won't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TM99 (Reply #84)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:21 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

87. No one is screwed, Millenials (who the hell comes up with these terms btw?)

or anyone else. SS is the most successful and stable fiscal program in this country and is in no danger of 'running out of money'. The fund right now has more than a two trillion dollar surplus and even in this economy has still produced a surplus every single year.

You are buying into the fear mongering by the enemies of SS on the Right, people like Pete Petersen and his cohorts who have been greedily eyeing this fund for decades, using every ploy they can buy with their vast fortunes to make people think that the SS is in 'trouble'. It is not. They want to get their greedy hands on that fund to privatize it and invest in the Gambling Casino on Wall St, known as 'The Market'.

The fact is that they have stolen, borrowed for the fund to pay for their wars for profit and for tax cuts for the wealthy which alone cost the American people over two trillion dollars over the past decade.

SS is solvent even in this economy and will be able to pay out its full obligations to those who own, that is US, ALL OF US, millenials, baby boomers and whoever else is paying into it, for the next 70 years or so. But the thieves who borrowed from it to pay for their 'hobbies' such as Bush's wars and his tax cuts, do not want to pay it back so they are using scare tactics to divide people, they are lying about the SS fund to put it bluntly.

To pay back what they stole/borrowed would mean 'no more tax cuts for the wealthy' and 'no more illegal wars for profit'. THAT is what caused the deficit btw and the Wall St. corruption that collapsed the economy for which no one has yet been held accountable.

SS is fine, everyone, including those entering the work force right now, will get their benefits, UNLESS we believe the lies and allow them to privatize that fund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:44 AM

TM99 (8,352 posts)

92. I really didn't need a tirade.

Last edited Tue Mar 5, 2013, 07:09 AM - Edit history (1)

I am quite aware of the economic realities of the social security fund, how it has been abused, and the lies and propaganda on both sides.

Most Americans and both political parties have bought hook, line, and sinker into 'austerity'.

You have faith that if we don't fall for the lies, we are all ok. I can respect that, really I do.

However, I just don't agree with you. The lies have been fallen for already. Sequester has occurred. Obama is now looking for a 'compromise' that will involve 'cuts' that Democrats claim to not want and Republicans are chomping at the bit to enact. I see nothing positive in the future for this country's political machine or its economic realities for those not in the top 10%.

If you are right and others can be woken up, then it won't matter what I stated. If I am right, then that reality is there. Boomers will make it under the wire, Millennials will need to plan for new options, and Generation Xer's will need to accept a very difficult and austere future indeed. I am a realist. I plan for problems and worst case scenarios so that I can enjoy what I may of family and life.

I am not buying into 'fear mongering'. I am accepting that the time for optimistic hope or pessimistic fear is long past. Now comes the acceptance and dealing with a system that is broken and has been for decades now, a country that is woefully out of balanced with regards to income distribution and getting worse not better, and an increasingly unintelligent and 'sleeping' populace more interested in Downton Abbey, Honey Boo Boo, and the next great iDevice than anything else including the environment, the economy, education, liberty, and their fellow Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 09:54 AM

dixiegrrrrl (59,455 posts)

96. "SS is fine".......except:

The purchasing power of the SS payments has been eroded by over 50% and will continue to erode, each year.
It is the "invisible" theft of retirement income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #96)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:09 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

111. That can be fixed by raising the cap and providing jobs here starting with

ending subsidies and tax breaks for those who take jobs out of the country among other things, but even considering that, SS is not in any immediate danger, nor as you know, did it have anything to do with the deficit and should not be even mentioned in these debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #111)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:36 AM

TM99 (8,352 posts)

From then on is Generation X. So no discrepancy with what I shared as far as ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TM99 (Reply #84)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:55 PM

Babel_17 (5,400 posts)

123. "a generation twice our size"

That's good news, actually. Right now we are looking at a one time demographic bump in the road. The boomers are numerous but after their arrival the nation started moving to a more sustainable growth in population.

Your generation is going to be a great fit, at retirement age, for the economy you'll be living in.

The forces that hate government are using all the propaganda at their disposal to strike now at SS. They know that once the easy fixes are put in place the issue will be dead forever.

Better days are coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to upaloopa (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:35 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

right-wing talking points. Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #66)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:37 PM

Doremus (6,865 posts)

124. The time for continued denial of the solvency of SS is long past over.

RW spew isn't any truer coming from a Dem mouth than straight from the vermin's mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Doremus (Reply #124)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 08:22 PM

customerserviceguy (25,148 posts)

132. I get my views from the writings of Dr. Allen W. Smith

Read this article to see if you think he's a right winger:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/01/tax-the-rich-to-repay-looted-social-security-money/

Then, do yourself a favor and find his other writings, he's about telling the truth from a progressive point of view, without pretendind that Social Security is going to be there forever.

Here's a little something to get you started:

http://www.fedsmith.com/2011/10/14/looting-social-security-socalled-trust-fund/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #132)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:59 AM

Babel_17 (5,400 posts)

134. May I ask?

Boomer SS contributions represent deferred gratification, yes? Instead of spending it on themselves, the money helped keep other taxes low and helped spur the US economic juggernaut. Money from the boomers also went into the US infrastructure, didn't it?

How are SS notes different than all the other Treasury Securities? Our government issues them and thus can spend more and tax less. That money goes into the same budget as SS contributions.

Doesn't it all boil down to the full faith and credit of the US government?

Default on Treasury Securities and there's a world wide catastrophe for all economies.

Default on the retirements of millions of Americans, well, wouldn't the politicians involved deserve what they got?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasury_security

It's the will of the people that Congress needs to honor the long understood commitment to SS funded retirement benefits. The brightest economists we have, who also have the best track records, say that it is eminently doable to provide for that.

Don't all discussions properly follow from that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Babel_17 (Reply #134)

Sat Mar 9, 2013, 07:03 PM

customerserviceguy (25,148 posts)

143. Sorry it took me a few days

but I do have some answers to your questions.

Boomer SS contributions do NOT represent deferred gratification. When I stick money in my 401K (presuming Vanguard doesn't go up in flames, like Madoff Investments did), that's deferred gratification. When I stick a pricey bottle of wine away in my tiny 'cellar' under the last row of stairs in our one-bedroom townhouse to age for several years before drinking it, that's delayed gratification. When my FICA taxes went straight into the Social Security checks of their recipients for the last forty years, that's not delayed gratification. One cannot save a bottle of wine and drink that bottle at the same time.

Also, the idea of delayed gratification involves a person weighing their choices. FICA tax wasn't a choice.

How do you get that FICA taxes 'helped keep other taxes low'? Being as the money that is taxed as FICA taxes is ALSO taxed with income taxes (double taxation if ever I've seen it) that doesn't make sense. And yes, money from boomers' taxes of all kinds did build infrastructure, but what's that got to do with your argument?

Social Security gets specialized Treasury securities, that are not tradeable on the open market. If I have a T-bill with an interest rate paying say, 3%, I would be able to sell it at a profit over face value if interest rates drop to 1%, or I would have to take a loss on face value if rates went to 5%. While it wouldn't be fun to take a loss, at least I could sell that T-bill to a willing buyer for a market price, and get most of my money back if I so desired. The Social Security notes can only be redeemed at the will of Congress. I think that's one of the reasons Bernie Sanders himself referred to them as IOU's, which are not terribly negotiable.

Yes, the full faith and credit of the Federal Government is supposedly all behind this, but what happens when the investing class starts to lose that faith? At one point, they all believed that the fairy-dust securities that led to the economic collapse of 2008 were worth something, too. Investors are remarkably irrationally exuberant about things one day, and sour as hell on them the next. That's how bubbles are created and then burst.

You seem to think that some mechanism is in place to "punish" politicians who fail to keep the Social Security checks flowing. I don't see what that mechanism is. Most who borrowed from the excess of FICA taxes over Social Security benefits checks for decades are long gone out of Congress, and many are dead. We can, I suppose, kick out the rest of them, but then we'd be left with a Congress that didn't create the problem, yet still have to deal with it.

Tossing Bernie Madoff in the slammer didn't repay his investors one dime beyond the pittance that they had to pay lawyers to scrap over from the fire sale of all of his worldly possessions. He didn't just take the money, he manufactured an illusion of its very existence. I could contract with you to provide you a unicorn for $10,000 and you might be able to recover some of that money from me in a lawsuit, but the court is not going to compel anyone to create a unicorn for you.

You can go on and on about what is right and just, or what the duties of the politicians are to the American people, but in the end, it doesn't matter. We've been eating the seed corn, and just because our bellies have been full so far doesn't mean that we aren't screwed when it comes to planting season. The only thing that can possibly help is to enact comprehensive reforms which raise taxes (on everybody, not just the rich) and cut discretionary spending. Also, we have to figure out how to stop being the world's policeman and nation-builder for people who can't wait till we're gone to blow up everything we've built for them.

It will take some changes to entitlement program benefits to keep them going, as well. It's a multi-pronged approach that will need a true grand bargain, some sort of well-thought out piecing together of various parts to be able to stop shoving the burden on future generations. What we're doing now is the exact opposite of deferred gratification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #143)

Sat Mar 9, 2013, 07:44 PM

Babel_17 (5,400 posts)

146. Thanks for the reply, and the food for thought.

I think a lot of this boil down to what is the worth of what people have contributed to SS. I'm willing to agree to disagree on that.

One other thing that I think gets missed in these discussions. The amount of money in the SS system is actually secondary to the overall wealth and health of the nation.

If they looked under the cushions and found trillions of dollars it wouldn't change the fact that goods and services are being provided by several generations for the retired one.

Yes, there is lots of wiggle room in how that can work but it all comes down to what is needed and what can be provided.

Imo, no eating of seed corn is needed.

nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ThomThom (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:11 AM

Sherman A1 (33,656 posts)

91. Precisely

We have indeed and frankly I think we should collect the money we paid in when it's time for our retirements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to upaloopa (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 09:51 AM

INdemo (6,908 posts)

95. So we elect a guy that we feel confident with that

he wont allow cuts to SS...he did say that during his campaign...Then we are suppose to keep quiet after he puts Social Security and Medicare on the table for budget cuts..The only way SS and Medicare ties in with the budget is the fact that (through Republican leadership) 2.7 trillion dollars was stolen from Soc.Security for budget expenditures and never paid back..Now that heisting of Soc. Security included Democrats too...So now we have a Wall Street corporatist as the Treas. Sec. And as it turns out a corporatist as President;but didn't we kinda know that from his first team..We just wanted to believe he would fight for our interests in his second term...but he's owned just like all the others by corpora tate and Wall St. dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to upaloopa (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:25 AM

Sekhmets Daughter (7,515 posts)

103. In 2010 there was a shortfall of $40 billion....

due to the high unemployment and the ever diminishing wages...the difference had to be made up out of the general treasury. We have been so royally screwed over, we may never recover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to upaloopa (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:52 AM

Yo_Mama (8,303 posts)

135. The deduction is not going to be enough to pay for the benefits paid out

There are also taxes on benefits, but those won't make up the gap.

SS payroll taxes (even if they had been at the full amount) have been short for a few years - benefits paid out are already more than taxes paid in.

So that's basically the problem.

The second part of the issue is the trust fund(s) - those are records of excess deductions paid in by workers since 1983 that were supposed to "prefund" this period when the boomers would be retiring and payroll taxes wouldn't cover their benefits. There are two problems here - one is that there is no actual money in the trust fund. The excess deductions were given to the general fund and special Treasury Obligations were issued. This means that now as we run deficits, the general fund must make up the difference between income and outgo in the SS/DI programs, from other tax revenues. Since we don't have enough tax revenues, money is borrowed and public debt increases.

Even if we had money in the trust fund(s), the trust funds are set to be exhausted by sometime in the 2030s, which would mean a benefit cut for the boomers.

But in fact, given our current high deficits, the problem will occur earlier when we can no longer borrow to fund SS benefit payments.

So we must either raise taxes to pay for the program, or we must cut benefits. We're set to have a 100% debt to GDP ratio sometime in the 2020s, and that's when TSHTF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:52 PM

marions ghost (19,841 posts)

4. yep

and the "squeeze" generation are looking after both elders and kids as best they can in this depression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to marions ghost (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:23 PM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

68. And paying back student loans.

Meanwhile, the bankers feast on the Social Security Trust Fund like a bunch of horseflies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:56 PM

llmart (11,394 posts)

5. I said years ago.....

the us baby boomers would get screwed five ways to Sunday and we already have been. If we want to be truly honest about it, the so-called "Greatest Generation" (I have hated that term since stupid Brokenjaw invented it) screwed us over. They had everything thrown at them by our government after WWII, but what did our generation get? All we ever hear is how we are such a large generation that we just can't afford to give you what you already earned.

Just for clarification, my personal definition of baby boomer is not what is generally considered the baby boom generation which has been defined by demographers as those born between 1946 and 1964. I think the real baby boomers are those born between 1946 and 1956. The term baby boomer came into being to describe those babies that were born right after WWII ended and the soldiers came home and started families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to llmart (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:35 PM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

16. You got what you voted for.

Or more precisely, what your generation voted for.

Reagan and company told a story of massive, unending prosperity for all if we just did what they said. And enough people bought it to shift our country's politics drastically to the right. Boomers overwhelmingly voted for Reagan in both elections, for example.

Or at least the ones who bothered to show up at the polls. A lot of boomers "tuned out" and didn't bother to vote, because "it's all corrupt, man!". As a result, there wasn't enough pull from the left to keep the country from lurching right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:52 PM

msongs (58,869 posts)

25. seems like reagan was not reelected in 2012. nice try though nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to msongs (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:58 PM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

31. Because history started in 2012.

Raising the eligibility age happened in 2012, not during Reagan's term.

And the Reagan revolution didn't have lasting effects that drove the country far to the right.

Nope, all we need to think about is the last 6 months. Nothing older than that could possibly matter in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jeff47 (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:25 PM

charlyvi (6,537 posts)

45. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Who was president when you came of age is evidently more important to your voting than what "generation" you come from.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/section-1-how-generations-have-changed/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Fumesucker (Reply #57)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 09:08 PM

jeff47 (26,549 posts)

71. Yes, but we lump people into "generations" as a very rough approximation

After all, they came of age about the same time, and would fall roughly into the same presidential cohort.

But as with any rough approximation, it's not nearly as accurate as fine-grained measurements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to llmart (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:11 AM

maddiemom (4,970 posts)

100. Point well taken. The baby boom era was really ended by the mid to late fifties,

and those born in 1945 could technically be included in the beginning. These are just arbitrary figures since, by 1964, with the earlier marriages and earlier starting of families at the time, the first baby boomers were near to starting their own families in a lot of cases. Why quibble? I have always thought the baby boom years were fairly fluid, but certainly over by 1960, but apparently a continuing higher birth rate into the sixties resulted in the 1946-1964 thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:58 PM

malokvale77 (4,879 posts)

6. I've said it many times...

they stole from the fund to pay for tax cuts and now they don't want to pay it back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to malokvale77 (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:17 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

7. I say it also, and then the apologists for whatever party is in

Power tell me I am delusional.

But how come we so rarely hear on TV that the Fund is its own Special Fund, and has a 2.1 trillion dollar surplus! Who is it gives the Blue Dawg Dems their nifty little pie charts, showing erroneously that Social Security comes out of the Federal Government's General Fund? (It may in fact come from that arena, but if so, only because the Feds administer the benefits - not because they are using Federal Tax Dollars to pay it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:39 PM

malokvale77 (4,879 posts)

17. Remember when...

Al Gore wanted to put it in a locked box? If only people had listened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to malokvale77 (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:21 AM

thucythucy (5,469 posts)

102. I remember Republicans and pundits in general

ridiculed Gore for using the phrase so many times! I also remember Bush dismissing Gore's predictions that GOP tax cuts for the wealthy would lead to deficits as "fuzzy math." Turns out the fuzzy math was all in the heads of Republicans.

None of this debate would be happening if Gore had been allowed to take office as he deserved. Instead, jerks like Greenspan would still be telling us how "dangerous" it is to our "freedom" to have a federal government that isn't beholden to the banksters, that is, runs up surpluses and is paying down the national debt.

If anyone in history is entitled to say "I told you so"--and on so many different issues--it's Al Gore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:23 PM

Demo_Chris (6,234 posts)

9. Here's another and better reason

The whole idea behind chained CPI is that they believe seniors will go along with it because their personal benefits will be largely unchanged, and the real damage will fall on their kids and grandkids. Sadly, based on track record, this is probably a safe bet. Current recipients will be mostly fine, on paper at least, but the program will be GONE for their kids and grandkids.

So my question to seniors is this...

What makes you think your kids and grandkids will continue paying in for a program they will never receive?

If seniors go along with stealing their kids and grandkids social security -- and that's what this is -- then heaven help those seniors. You better pray you banked lots of money before shipping your kids jobs overseas, because I suspect you are gonna need it.

Social Security will be privatized so quick it will make your head spin. After all, chained CPI is a guarantee that future retirees get nothing, privatized they at least have a chance (however slim). And that means that after chained-CPI current recipients will be on budget, under the scalpel, and with no one left who really cares.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:41 PM

Skittles (133,108 posts)

19. you think like a repuke

it's not the 1% fucking us over - it's SENIORS

I bet I have plenty of company who didn't vote for that piece of shit!

I wasn't fooled by him, nor either of the Bushes.

I have NEVER voted for any republican!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:53 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

26. i am sorry that you are a victim of the war between the generations

One that has been created by our beloved Fourth Estate.

The fact is - One) That chart that is bandied about, showing how the Social Security payments amount to some 24% of the government's total spending each year is FALSE. The Social Security funds are in their own special fund, and currently that fund has a 2.1 trillion dollar surplus. Two) The Fund itself would be in trouble, sometime after the year 2030. Since it is also predicted that we will have a pandemic that wipes us all out by then, I think it would be wise to wait until 2025 to start worrying. People who are wiser than me say that there is a way that we could straighten this out IMMEDIATELY: raise the rates on people making over $ 115,000 a year. This is more than fair - believe me, the better off you are, the more likely you will live to see your share of the earnings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:11 PM

Demo_Chris (6,234 posts)

38. I agree, we could raise or eliminate the cap and solve in indefinately

But the POINT is to destroy the current program. There's a lot of money there and Wall Street wants to play with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:47 PM

ThomThom (1,486 posts)

60. so true so true

they don't care about the promise that was made to 15 year old's .... of course we we not allowed to opt out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 10:59 PM

xtraxritical (3,576 posts)

75. Business considers their half of the withholding "just another unjust tax".

Because they can buy all the Congress critters they need, we're screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to xtraxritical (Reply #75)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:00 AM

mountain grammy (22,485 posts)

109. You hit it! It all comes down to corps paying their half. Now that most pensions are

out of the way, the next target is the half of the payroll tax the employers pay, and it's been the target. If workers paid the entire amount, there would be no problem, and they do, when they are self employed. Hence, let's just pay everyone like private contractors.. sound familiar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mountain grammy (Reply #109)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:21 PM

xtraxritical (3,576 posts)

120. Let's just raise the cap on the SOBs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to xtraxritical (Reply #120)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:03 PM

mountain grammy (22,485 posts)

121. Yes, yes, yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:10 PM

Duval (4,280 posts)

53. Thank you, truedelphi! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:00 PM

djean111 (14,255 posts)

33. You honestly believe anyone in Washington gives a shit about seniors? They don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to djean111 (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:11 PM

Demo_Chris (6,234 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:24 PM

99Forever (14,524 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:49 PM

KansDem (28,498 posts)

21. Kay & Ray!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KansDem (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:55 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

27. Thanks Kansas Dem. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:50 PM

blkmusclmachine (16,149 posts)

22. Theft

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:56 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

30. Exactly! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:56 PM

msongs (58,869 posts)

29. If only we had a president and congress that supported SS. better luck next year eh? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:06 PM

Zen Democrat (5,877 posts)

36. My Republican uncle told my dad that SS wouldn't be there for him. In the 1950s!

My dad is now 93 and has been drawing SS since he was 62.

I don't believe these scare tactics. My boss is for privatizing because he says SS won't be around for his kids and it's not fair. Same thing my uncle told my dad 55 years ago.

SS will last as long as the American people demand it. And they have demanded it. Just ask George Bush, Jr. how privatization worked for him in 2005.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:40 PM

raccoon (29,168 posts)

122. In 1975, my boss said SS wouldn't be worth a damn when we turned 65. She is now 67

and drawing SS.

So, yes, these scare tactics have been around for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:36 PM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

47. K&R. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:52 PM

wryter2000 (40,228 posts)

52. I lost a year

Born in 1948, I have to wait until I'm 66. At my age. that's going to be a long year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:23 PM

Louisiana1976 (3,962 posts)

55. Well said. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:27 PM

Blue_In_AK (46,436 posts)

56. I'm 66

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:23 PM

virgogal (10,178 posts)

78. You make it sound as if the Boomers suffered more than any other generation.

You have GOT to be kidding.

They just experienced what is known as "life".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to virgogal (Reply #78)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:35 PM

Hoyt (47,395 posts)

79. I think I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to virgogal (Reply #78)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:03 AM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

82. In some ways, we are guilty of using up all the fun.

Jobs were plentiful although the competition for higher level jobs was intense. (People with PhD's in literature had to drive cabs due to competition.) Rents were cheap - so if you wanted to work hard thee or four days a week at some enterprise you established, you could have a long weekend every week - and still buy a condo! Gasoline waas like 34 cents for a gallon.

But the younger people don't get how the culture was forever altered. (You younger whippersnippers!) I am reminded of this guy who
worked up the street from where I worked, about ten years ago. My girlfriend and I went in to pick up the printing his company was doing. This twenty something guy overheard us talking about some concert we had seen, decades earlier, and the event must have dated us. (Certainly our looks didn't, I mean, I couldn't look my age could I? And no, don't answer the last question.)

Anyway he says to us, above the blare of the hard rock that was booming over the speakers in his part of the office, "So the thing I never forgave you Boomers for, you think you made changes... What the hell changes did you make?"

T. and I both split a gut laughing, after we got out of the place. I mean, he had tattoos over every visible inch of his body. Hair down to his waist, and earrings and other piercings. He was working for a mid-level corporation, and he didn't have the vaguest idea that back in the day, he'd have either had to be getting money from Mom and Dad, or selling weed on the street, to be dressed like that. And back in the day, the only music that a worker ever got in their mid level corporate work station was Muzak, not hard rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:07 AM

admonish (48 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:03 AM

colorado_ufo (4,524 posts)

85. Take your Social Security early, in many cases!

The extra amount you earn by waiting until "fully qualified" will seldom make up for two, three, or four years worth of benefits lost forever. And if you - may God forbid - die before that magic "fully qualified" age, you will hopefully have received at least something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:59 AM

eridani (51,903 posts)

88. The cuts are going to hurt succeeding generations even more

Vanishing defined benefits pensions, ability to save hit hard by crappy economy, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to eridani (Reply #88)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 08:04 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

129. Yes, I agree with you. Totally. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:22 AM

1983law (213 posts)

90. For those of us born

in 1966-69, what are we called? BB, Gen X, dead weight

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to 1983law (Reply #90)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:11 AM

Jennicut (25,415 posts)

99. You are a Gen Xer.

You are the oldest of the Gen Xers. You can now officially call yourself a slacker. I'm a Gen Xer as well, being born in '75. I think this is the rough estimate of the birth dates for all the generations:

1927-1945 - Silent Generation
1946-1964 - Baby Boomers
1965-1983 - Gen X or the Busters
1984- 2002 - Gen Y or the Millennials
2003- Current Gen Z or the Digital Generation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:09 AM

Romulox (25,960 posts)

98. Let's remove the income cap on SS, for a start. It's not fair, and the arguments against make no

sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:30 AM

chervilant (8,267 posts)

105. ALL OF US

should be furious! When are the masses going to stop whingeing online and start descending on DC to STOP this hedonistic insanity?!?

It's like we're standing right behind a line in the sand, watching the corporate megalomaniacs wield their sticks. They tell us we're about to step on their line, and we apologize and back up! Then, they draw a new line in the sand. Are they going to back us into a corner before we fight for our rights?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to chervilant (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:10 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

127. We are unfortunately, very divided as a nation.

The "R" and "D" designation is not clear cut any more as to what someone's individual stance is on any issue.

A friend of mine was very supportive of Obama's DOJ going after a group of 35 low income households in Santa Rosa Calif., back on Sept 27th 2012. No warrants were issued, except for the very first household! The police then decided since on e person was growing in their backyard, more people could be growing the stuff, so they went in to home after home after home. People handcuffed and left sitting on the curb, the kids and babies crying.

My friend has supported Med marijuana legalization, but he refused to get mad at Obama. "These people are probably Mexican illegals" he said with a smirk. I was very disgusted to find out how racist, and class-fixated his views were, as he had accused me of being racist for not supporting Obama in all of his many activities that I view as illegal and immoral (The drone attacks on third world people, his response to BP, his support of the NDAA etc.)

My RW Christian-fanatic neighbor was very upset about the same activity - she does social work and can think of no reason at all to justify all these kids being put into foster care, the families sure to be facing huge debts to handle court costs etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:36 AM

WilliamPitt (58,179 posts)

106. What % of DC lawmakers are Boomers?

Legit question, I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #106)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:42 AM

WinkyDink (51,311 posts)

117. I think that question ought to be: "What % of the Boomers in DC are IN the 1%?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:46 AM

CountAllVotes (19,203 posts)

107. cancer has taken its toll

You nailed it.

The big FEAR that boomers will drain the SS fund it total b.s. IMO.

My best friend died of cancer at the age of 34.

My brother died of cancer at the age of 42.

I had a set of 4 cousins, all brothers, all dead in their late 40s and early 50s; 3 of cancer one had a stroke I think (not sure and did not ask!).

Another good friend just died of cancer at the age of 61 at the end of January.

None of the above people collected a cent from SS and all of them paid into it for years.

You got one very sick generation of people is what you have and the big worry that we'll live a long time is a farce as all of us were heavily exposed to many highly toxic chemicals as children and young adults. There were no environmental laws in the 1950s and the 1960s when the oh so feared "boomers" were growing up.

for the boomers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #107)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:14 AM

mountain grammy (22,485 posts)

112. and diabetes and heart disease..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #107)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:41 AM

WinkyDink (51,311 posts)

However, right now, Obama is too busy doing as his Advisors suggest to give a rat's ass about the rest of us.

His idea of Middle Class is the people that associated with him and Michelle before they hit the WH (people who make between $ 350K or more a year.)

The Trans Pacific Plan is keeping him plenty busy.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2013/03/trans-pacific-partnership-new.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:15 AM

lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)

I worked it out. I collect enough in the four early years that it would
take another 17 years to make up the difference with the larger amount
begun at 66. I'm not playing that game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #171)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 01:29 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

172. That is a good point you are making.

But the fact remains, neither you or I or any other person should be required to have their benefits so decreased. I have heard it is a fourteen percent decrease per year - so for me to do this next year, knowing that the government expects me to wait until I am 67, means a huge loss in the bennies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #171)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 02:12 PM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

173. Here is how someone named

AmericanAnt over on DailyKos considered the problem, mathematically speaking:

"The math on this is interesting, IMHO (3+ / 0-)

"According to the linked site, if you have a full benefits retirement age of 67 and retire at age 62 your monthly benefit is reduced by 30%.

"Meanwhile, their actuaries claim that the life expectancy for people who retired in 2000 was 81 for males and 84 for females. So, lets assume that I live to 81 (since I'm a male, but I assume that OleHippieChick is either a female or a poultry farmer) and compare the outcomes.

"81-62 is 19 years of benefits at 70% of the rate, or the equivalent of 13.3 years at the 100% level. 81-67 is 14 years, you can see that you end up slightly worse off if you live to the expected age, but only by about 5%.

"The break-even point is 16.67 years of early retirement vs. 11.67 years of full retirement, or about 2.33 years shorter than average life expectancy. Clearly if you have an inkling about your particular chances based on health, family history, etc. you might well be advised to take one or the other based on that information.

"If you were to live to 90, in the early retirement scenario you collect 19.6 years worth of full benefits, but would have gotten 23 years of benefits if you had waited to 67. This turns out to be about a 15% reduction overall.

"Clearly, the goal is to retire early and die young

"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

174 replies	Author	Time	Post
If You Are A Baby Boomer - the real reason YOU SHOULD BE FURIOUS over CPI cuts: (Original post)	truedelphi	Mar 2013	OP
HUGE K & R !!!	WillyT	Mar 2013	#1
Sush, prole. The 1% wants that money and they have the power to take it. Now just shush.	Scuba	Mar 2013	#2
it's an absurd OP	hfojvt	Mar 2013	#141
I don't understand how Social Security is part of the	upaloopa	Mar 2013	#3
That money goes to the rich and big biz	n2doc	Mar 2013	#8
It isn't.	jeff47	Mar 2013	#12
In 20 years, a lot of Boomers will be gone.	Zen Democrat	Mar 2013	#32
Under there scenario, it's stable at 70% of current benefits forever	jeff47	Mar 2013	#35
Last I read, this is how the generational population breaks down	Hestia	Mar 2013	#74
And this describes the true situation	TM99	Mar 2013	#84
No one is screwed, Millenials (who the hell comes up with these terms btw?)	sabrina 1	Mar 2013	#87
I really didn't need a tirade.	TM99	Mar 2013	#92
"SS is fine".......except:	dixiegrrrrl	Mar 2013	#96
That can be fixed by raising the cap and providing jobs here starting with	sabrina 1	Mar 2013	#111
I agree with you that this could work,	TM99	Mar 2013	#114
Another big chunk of "lost" revenue	Jeff In Milwaukee	Mar 2013	#118
Hmmmm	PasadenaTrudy	Mar 2013	#110
You are the last year of Boomers.	TM99	Mar 2013	#113
"a generation twice our size"	Babel_17	Mar 2013	#123
I tried to let people know in another OP I had	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#15
Excellent post!	JDPriestly	Mar 2013	#49
I am amazed at how blatant "our" representatives are with the hand wringing and the	WCGreen	Mar 2013	#51
Just after	chervilant	Mar 2013	#97
It is loaned out on IOUs. And they are trying as hard as they can to get their paid congress	DhhD	Mar 2013	#39
also we paid twice	ThomThom	Mar 2013	#58
That's the only thing that kept Social Security going this long	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#62
So we should be shot BECAUSE we paid more into SS? Or........	socialist_n_TN	Mar 2013	#63
No, we had years to figure out how to get past the baby boom	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#66
Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky......	socialist_n_TN	Mar 2013	#67
That's crap. We baby boomers paid double rates because of our numbers.	rhett o rick	Mar 2013	#77
If that money had truly been invested in something solid, you might have a point	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#93
There is no "unfunded liability". That's a conservative talking point.	rhett o rick	Mar 2013	#94
If it's a "talking point"	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#130
Did you read the report? I am a simple minded person.	rhett o rick	Mar 2013	#133
I did read it	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#136
The trust fund was INTENDED to go to zero. The system was designed	rhett o rick	Mar 2013	#137
It's going to get there a lot quicker than you think	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#138
It's me, not you. I am doing terrible making my point obviously.	rhett o rick	Mar 2013	#139
And if we had the expanding economies of the 50's, 60's	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#142
I am not sure where you are getting this, but in my opinion it's gibberish.	rhett o rick	Mar 2013	#150
There are a number of problems	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#156
SS was means tested in 1993	reteachinwi	Mar 2013	#158
I stopped doing taxes in 1990	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#161
SS is a giveaway program? That Sir, needs a citation or an apology for making craap up.	FogerRox	Mar 2013	#125
Leaving alone the most infamous case of Ida May Fuller	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#131
That statement along with a number of others seem consistant with	rhett o rick	Mar 2013	#154
The time for continued denial of the solvency of SS is long past over.	Doremus	Mar 2013	#124
I get my views from the writings of Dr. Allen W. Smith	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#132
May I ask?	Babel_17	Mar 2013	#134
Sorry it took me a few days	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#143
Thanks for the reply, and the food for thought.	Babel_17	Mar 2013	#146
You're welcome	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#148
I agree with some of what you are saying	Babel_17	Mar 2013	#155
Again, my thanks	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#157
SS increases masked budget deficits created by corporate and individual income tax cuts.	reteachinwi	Mar 2013	#159
Your bolded paragraphs are indeed true	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#160
Yeah, not many people remember that. Or at least don't bring it up........	socialist_n_TN	Mar 2013	#64
Precisely	Sherman A1	Mar 2013	#91
So we elect a guy that we feel confident with that	INdemo	Mar 2013	#95
In 2010 there was a shortfall of $40 billion....	Sekhmets Daughter	Mar 2013	#103
The deduction is not going to be enough to pay for the benefits paid out	Yo_Mama	Mar 2013	#135
yep	marions ghost	Mar 2013	#4
And paying back student loans.	JDPriestly	Mar 2013	#68
I said years ago.....	llmart	Mar 2013	#5
You got what you voted for.	jeff47	Mar 2013	#16
seems like reagan was not reelected in 2012. nice try though nt	msongs	Mar 2013	#25
Because history started in 2012.	jeff47	Mar 2013	#31
Wrong, wrong, wrong.	charlyvi	Mar 2013	#45
That was a sarcastic response.	jeff47	Mar 2013	#46
OK. Thanks	charlyvi	Mar 2013	#48
Don't be sorry, we need to be constantly reminded.	mountain grammy	Mar 2013	#108
Um....	llmart	Mar 2013	#54
Whether or not you did, boomers did.	jeff47	Mar 2013	#70
There are some strong demographic trends politically that don't really line up like that	Fumesucker	Mar 2013	#57
Yes, but we lump people into "generations" as a very rough approximation	jeff47	Mar 2013	#71
Point well taken. The baby boom era was really ended by the mid to late fifties,	maddiemom	Mar 2013	#100
I've said it many times...	malokvale77	Mar 2013	#6
I say it also, and then the apologists for whatever party is in	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#7
Remember when...	malokvale77	Mar 2013	#17
I remember Republicans and pundits in general	thucythucy	Mar 2013	#102
Here's another and better reason	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#9
you think like a repuke	Skittles	Mar 2013	#19
No, but that is exactly how the GOP will play it	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#23
of course the fucking GOP will play it that way	Skittles	Mar 2013	#24
So we agree: The GOP will play it that way	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#37
Well I'm going to do some opposite	John2	Mar 2013	#115
Gen X didn't elect Reagan	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#119
Boomers didn't necessarily elect Raygun, either.	love_katz	Mar 2013	#153
i am sorry that you are a victim of the war between the generations	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#26
I agree, we could raise or eliminate the cap and solve in indefinately	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#38
so true so true	ThomThom	Mar 2013	#60
Business considers their half of the withholding "just another unjust tax".	xtraxritical	Mar 2013	#75
You hit it! It all comes down to corps paying their half. Now that most pensions are	mountain grammy	Mar 2013	#109
Let's just raise the cap on the SOBs.	xtraxritical	Mar 2013	#120
Yes, yes, yes!	mountain grammy	Mar 2013	#121
Thank you, truedelphi! n/t	Duval	Mar 2013	#53
You honestly believe anyone in Washington gives a shit about seniors? They don't.	djean111	Mar 2013	#33
I agree	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#40
No generation is "stealing" from their descendants	SoCalDem	Mar 2013	#34
I believe that every generation is entrusted to guard this earth and society for the future	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#42
Exactly right and very well put! "We OWE each ...it's just that simple...	maddiemom	Mar 2013	#101
Why will many kids continue to pay in?	JDPriestly	Mar 2013	#69
I guess I have done a poor job explaining this	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#73
What happens two or three or four decades down the road	JDPriestly	Mar 2013	#86
I agree. The point was that time matters when you apply chained CPI to it n/t	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#89
President Obama offered it, so it...	99Forever	Mar 2013	#10
No worries, according to a recent article in the Washington Post	AnnieK401	Mar 2013	#11
The only way to stop it	Pakid	Mar 2013	#13
My Blue Dawg Congressman, Mike Thompson, (Lake County Calif.) is absolutely gleeful	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#20
They're telling the boomers they have to sacrifice for their kids....	Spitfire of ATJ	Mar 2013	#14
Does anyone anywhere know the amount of huge contributions the Social Security	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#18
That doesn't matter.	Spitfire of ATJ	Mar 2013	#43
How can we who are on Social Security help out their kids	RebelOne	Mar 2013	#50
Soem peopel have the good fortune of being double dippers -	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#174
You have this backwards	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#28
Most people don't even know how the program works....	Spitfire of ATJ	Mar 2013	#41
Good point	Demo_Chris	Mar 2013	#44
Kay & Ray!	KansDem	Mar 2013	#21
Thanks Kansas Dem. n/t	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#27
Theft	blkmusclmachine	Mar 2013	#22
Exactly! n/t	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#30
If only we had a president and congress that supported SS. better luck next year eh? nt	msongs	Mar 2013	#29
My Republican uncle told my dad that SS wouldn't be there for him. In the 1950s!	Zen Democrat	Mar 2013	#36
In 1975, my boss said SS wouldn't be worth a damn when we turned 65. She is now 67	raccoon	Mar 2013	#122
K&R. Well said.	JDPriestly	Mar 2013	#47
I lost a year	wryter2000	Mar 2013	#52
Well said. K&R	Louisiana1976	Mar 2013	#55
I'm 66	Blue_In_AK	Mar 2013	#56
k&r...	spanone	Mar 2013	#59
We are also the only generation to pay DOUBLE:	truebluegreen	Mar 2013	#61
As I said in a post upthread.........	socialist_n_TN	Mar 2013	#65
We should be raising the roof with it,	truebluegreen	Mar 2013	#104
It's called stealing	Milliesmom	Mar 2013	#72
K&R! Bravo!	David Zephyr	Mar 2013	#76
You make it sound as if the Boomers suffered more than any other generation.	virgogal	Mar 2013	#78
I think I agree.	Hoyt	Mar 2013	#79
In some ways, we are guilty of using up all the fun.	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#82
don't forget us 50 year olds	admonish	Mar 2013	#80
I remember those tax increases	Oilwellian	Mar 2013	#81
Listen to Michael Bloomberg on "entitlement" reform. It'll make you throw-up.	SleeplessinSoCal	Mar 2013	#83
Spoken like a true billionaire nt	daa	Mar 2013	#128
Take your Social Security early, in many cases!	colorado_ufo	Mar 2013	#85
The cuts are going to hurt succeeding generations even more	eridani	Mar 2013	#88
Yes, I agree with you. Totally. n/t	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#129
For those of us born	1983law	Mar 2013	#90
You are a Gen Xer.	Jennicut	Mar 2013	#99
Let's remove the income cap on SS, for a start. It's not fair, and the arguments against make no	Romulox	Mar 2013	#98
ALL OF US	chervilant	Mar 2013	#105
We are unfortunately, very divided as a nation.	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#127
What % of DC lawmakers are Boomers?	WilliamPitt	Mar 2013	#106
I think that question ought to be: "What % of the Boomers in DC are IN the 1%?"	WinkyDink	Mar 2013	#117
cancer has taken its toll	CountAllVotes	Mar 2013	#107
and diabetes and heart disease..	mountain grammy	Mar 2013	#112
My cousin just died of cancer, aged 60.	WinkyDink	Mar 2013	#116
I think they want cuts now in order to mask	madville	Mar 2013	#126
I'm an exbookkeeper.	Cleita	Mar 2013	#151
There is a BIG LIE being told here and it's being told over and over again so people	Cleita	Mar 2013	#140
Social Security may not be responsible for the debt	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#144
There is still $2.6 trillion in the fund.	Cleita	Mar 2013	#145
Again, did you see the math?	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#147
I'm quite familiar with the "math" of those who try to convince us our hair is on fire.	Cleita	Mar 2013	#149
Everybody has access to the same facts	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#164
You just won't give it up will you.	Cleita	Mar 2013	#165
Yeah, that's what people say	customerserviceguy	Mar 2013	#167
I went to your guru's website.	Cleita	Mar 2013	#169
Life expectancy at 65, for this new generation, is	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#162
I am and I am. And if this happens, I will send a request to Obama	MotherPetrie	Mar 2013	#152
Good luck with that. I'd like my money back too.	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#163
Raising the age to 67 is a 20% benefits cut for men. n/t	lumberjack_jeff	Mar 2013	#166
Can I just add one more reason	Le Taz Hot	Mar 2013	#168
K&R for the baby boomers....	midnight	Mar 2013	#170
Not waiting until I'm 66--filed for early (62) benefits that begin in May.	mnhtnbb	Mar 2013	#171
That is a good point you are making.	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#172
Here is how someone named	truedelphi	Mar 2013	#173