Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)

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

Reply to Paulie (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:31 PM

Dec 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So correct me if I am wrong - but Social Security recipients have already [View all] truedelphi Dec 2012 OP

K&R MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #1

You are not wrong. They have chipping away at that fund for decades now and sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #2

Too bad it is DeFazio alone - without Obama backing him - that truedelphi Dec 2012 #5

What's happened down there at the WH, indeed. Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #8

Remember Al Gore's SS lock box? Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #6

When feeling cynical abelenkpe Dec 2012 #10

The charge is building on the third rail Fumesucker Dec 2012 #3

Many talented people apparently agree with us - truedelphi Dec 2012 #26

kr. There have been a string of benefit reductions, such as making benefits taxable under HiPointDem Dec 2012 #4

Yep, and if your spouse is still working, your piddly benefit now gets taxed at the rate of Flatulo Dec 2012 #14

yes, you can get your full retirement at 65. I chose to underthematrix Dec 2012 #7

That totally depends on what year you were born. I thought I needed mine at 62. It is 50% of what I judesedit Dec 2012 #11

No you can't. Ret. age was raised to 67. Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #12

She is simply misusing the term "full retirement" Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #32

we don't get what you got Skittles Dec 2012 #19

Actually you do... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #33

if you think even the benefits as they are now will be there in the future Skittles Dec 2012 #35

I will be 65 Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #38

I take it you were born in the forties. For those of truedelphi Dec 2012 #21

Full retirement at age 65 Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #34

Then why is the header to her argument "Full Retirement" truedelphi Dec 2012 #36

Because she doesn't really know what she is talking about. Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #39

Apaprently your productivity in the kitchen is just further proof of how truedelphi Jan 2013 #41

Pineapple Upside down cake, from scratch.... Enjoy! Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #42

"equivalent in evil to any 'terrorists" That's letting them off too easy. jtuck004 Dec 2012 #9

Yep, and here is a stat gleaned off the internet regarding what has truedelphi Dec 2012 #25

You can retire and still wait before you take full S.S. payments. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #13

Most people nearing retirement have nowhere near the cash reserves to live with no income for years. Flatulo Dec 2012 #15

Yeah And I can pay for my health insurance truedelphi Dec 2012 #20

K&R forestpath Dec 2012 #16

Not to mention that Obama froze SS payments for like 2-3 years 99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #17

He didn't freeze them Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #18

The 1983 Social Security Amendments built in a sliding scale based on birth-year.... OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #22

From the SS site: Paulie Dec 2012 #24

??? Isn't that what I just linked??.... OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #27

Yes, I was agreeing with ya! Paulie Dec 2012 #28

Okay! Thanks! nt. OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #31

Unfortunately, many people, especiallywomen, truedelphi Dec 2012 #30

Like my mom Paulie Dec 2012 #40

And it's interesting that members of congress receiving pensions can start getting them at 62. n/t bluethruandthru Dec 2012 #23

I was happy to get SS disability... Historic NY Dec 2012 #29

You are correct, they INTEND to... 99Forever Dec 2012 #37

Kicked for more input Jim Warren Jan 2013 #43