Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What are your "acceptable" cuts to Social Security?

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
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:22 PM
Original message
Poll question: What are your "acceptable" cuts to Social Security?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. You forgot "whatever Obama wants" as a choice
Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 09:24 PM by MannyGoldstein
Would win overwhelmingly tonight, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. seems that way. i hope people snap out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. I trust Obama to make the right decision. If he wants to reduce social security payments,
raise the retirement age, transform public schools by creating private charters, replace our troops in Iraq with private contractors, expand our much needed military adventures in Afghanistan, keep the Pakistani terrorists in line with our impressive predator drones, and keep the teachers unions in line--(there needs to be a balance of power after all!!!) I'm sure there's a lot less torture at Bagram Airfield Theatre now that Obama's in charge. For all we know, he probably shut it down. He has very good judgement, you know. I think Gitmo is still open. But it is much more humane now. I hear they have Popcorn Thursdays and Twister Mondays. (How bad can it be?)

I don't get all these people who are so angry with Obama for doing what needs to be done. If we don't take the Republicans positions, the Republicans will take the Republicans positions and then we'll never get important bills like the Healthcare Private Insurance Mandate through congress.

I like Obama's puppy. And he is our most handsome president ever. If he has to attack social security, I, for one, am prepared to suffer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. +1 ... Outstanding!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. i too like his puppy.
:fistbump:

(that's brilliant!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. How do you feel about Michelle's toned arms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. I like Michelle Obama's toned arms. I don't think there are nearly enough picture threads
of Michelle Obama looking pretty and Barack and Michelle holding hands and being in love. It just shows how important and meaningful a beautiful marriage can be. For straight people. Does anyone know where I can get Obama Family wallpaper? I just can get enough of their beautiful faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. those are my favorite b/c I can imagine what it would be like to have a King and Queen.
it's classy like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Let's have our own Camelot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #28
75. Thanks you guys, I needed a laugh this morning! :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. A++++++
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Agreed. What if Bo has puppies?
Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 10:31 PM by MannyGoldstein
Would that be incredible, or what? They can go to Democrats and Republicans, a touching example of how, deep down, we're all the same.

Except that the Democrats wouldn't eat their puppies. Unless they are DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. And wouldn't it be a touching gesture...
..if each casket coming back from Afghanistan contained one cute little presidential puppy to relieve the family of its grief!!! It'd be like "Oh no, daddy is died!" and then it'd be like "Look at the puppy! Daddy brought me a puppy!" But the puppy wouldn't be from Daddy, the puppy would be from Obama. That'd be the most Democratiest act of kindness ever! That'd be real change!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
85. Well,
Since Bo is a male, it really would be incredible if he has puppies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. ^ LOL Cracking up LOL! ^ n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
44. AMAZING
:rofl: and :thumbsup: to everything you're doing on this thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
59. And the kids are sooo cute. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
91. "For straight people."
:spray: :rofl: :D

Damn, you're good. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #19
69. They make me feel all funny inside. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. This definitely deserves
to be an opening post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. Puppies!
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Ponies too

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #30
58. Puppies with kittens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #58
90. i love both puppehs and kittehs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. LOL
Great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #14
57. I believe I will adopt your position. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smokey nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
63. You are a genius and your posts in this thread are works of art.
Well done!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #14
80. That may be best post I've ever read. BRAVO!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
100. I don't think he is our most handsome president ever.
And HANDS OF SOCIAL SECURITY ! :argh:

One thing is certain, he'll never have to rely on SS in his retirement yrs, like so many of us will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
43. Sad and true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
50. Neither of my two choices are in the poll either
1. Have all earned income subject to FICA.

2. Bring all workers into the system. I've never had it explained to me why so many workers are not included in social security, the largest groups being most public school teachers in California, Texas and many other states.

Those two changes would vastly improve the program's health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Taking that cap off... so EVERYBODY
puts in on ALL their income.

Nah, that will never fly... but a girl can dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Call it "topless" and millions of male teabaggers will favor it.
They don't want to hear any explanations. Just give 'em the name.

Topless Social Security!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. RLOL
:spank: :spank: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That WAS hysterical! And sadly it just MIGHT work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
72. Can we also bring everyone into the system
so everybody puts into it.

Right now most public schoolteachers in California, Texas and many other states are not part of the social security system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not a cut, but to bring more revenue in
Gradually lift the cap on the earnings at which you pay FICA taxes. It' stupid that only the first $106,000 is taxed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
27. and include investment earnings b/c that's where the richest rich have their wealth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
45. the cap is already raised nearly every year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
60. Gradually lift the cap? Why not just toss it away?
FICA taxes are not a huge hit, so why not just apply them to all income, instead of just the first bunch?

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
82. That could be a real boon.
If the cap was removed the wealthiest would be convincing the struggling, rapidly decreasing middle class tea baggers that it was a 'new' tax. Then we would be treated to even more tea parties w/ even more completely irrelevant stupid and misspelled signs. See it is a win-win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
83. I was thinking
the only acceptable cut is to cut the cap on earnings out of the law completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Stop taxing SS Benefits
And remove the cap on earnings subject to SS tax. What? Those aren't cuts, you say? My bad.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I'll second that motion n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Lower COLA?
Isn't that already at zero now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. since it's tied to wages, then yes...it's essentially zero.
Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 09:30 PM by nashville_brook
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Both of Obama's co-chairman want to lower the formula
So that COLA increases would be 1% lower from now on (e.g., if it was going to be 2.5% it would change to 1.5%).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. damn -- i did not know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. 'Democrat' Bowles cut a deal with Gingrich to do that
under Clinton, but Congress refused.

Simpson's also proposed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. seems like i recently read something about the dismantling of AARP as a political block
the stars are aligning for a major skinning on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. More info on how Clinton, Gingrich, and Bowles tried to slash Social Security
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. The COLA has always been reduced by a raise in
the Medicare premium to start with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. No means testing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. wouldn't that be nice. if the rich actually paid their fair share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
46. taxing ss as income = means testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
53. NOT WELFARE
SS is an insurance program that pays an annuity at age 65. It is not welfare. Everyone pays in, everyone gets a pension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. if you're for cutting SS -- go ahead and let us know why.
Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 09:39 PM by nashville_brook
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
23. Remove cap. Lower retirement age.
That is all you have to do.

Remove cap - never a funding problem

Lower retirement age = nobody should be forced to work when they are old(er) and retired people allow younger folks to work.

Humans just want the worst for other humans don't we...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. i can't imagine how impossible it would be to find a job as a senior...it's bad enough being
...uh...not a senior. we're making it so seniors must work to make ends meet, at a time when finding a job is harder than it's ever been in recent history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Why worry? Many would-be retirees find fulfillment in the mining
and waste disposal industries.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
76. Not only that but a lot of retirees give back to the community.
Can you imagine, community gardens, business advice at the SBA, classes at community centers, food distribution, housing help. Oops, that sounds like Socialism. Nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
35. Other...lift the cap so that billionaires pay the same
15% of their income that everyone who makes under $106,000 a year does. And there is nothing wrong with SS for years from now. This is another red herring, courtesy of the corporations, who resent having to pay half that 15% for their employees and Wall Street who think they should have that money in the trust fund not the retirees who paid into it all their lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
56. I agree with removing the cap with one caveat
It should be at a reduced rate that reflects that they do not get benefits on that additional payment. Right now the $50K to $105K folks carry the weight of Social Security. Those below $50K actually do better actuarially by contributing to Social Security. Those above about $50K, because of the reduced benefit funding formula, do worse. You don't want really high incomes to be calculated into the funding formula because that would cause too many distortions. To expect those making $50 to $105K to carry the load alone is ridiculous.

I would be careful with additional means testing of Social Security. I think you want to encourage individuals to save for retirement. Frankly at some point on penalizing me for my 401k money, I will decide to stop working earlier and draw down that money to avoid this needs testing. With a spouse or a roommate, I calculate that I could have a survivable retirement even without my savings. I would rather have my freedom at an earlier age than be penalized for being thrifty my entire life.

Everyone should be in the system starting with their first paycheck. No one should be excluded. The way the funding formula works (approx. 90% benefit calculation on incomes up to $10K) you can game the system for a pretty nice retirement check. Some ratios to consider (assuming 35 years of earning at the same level calculated and 6.2% withholding by you and your employer):

Those making up to $9132 20.7% of yearly benefits/payments
Those making up to $55032 9.6% of yearly benefits/payments
Those making up to $106,800 6.6% of yearly benefits/payments

That last group probably also falls under pseudo needs testing (taxing Social Security benefits).

In general you cannot impact your Social Security check after you have 35 years of good earnings.

Note you could make $32,000 for 10 years on S.S. and be entitled to a check the same size as someone who worked 35 years at $9100. Makes sense to retire from a system outside of Social Security at 55 and get that Social Security job until retirement. The payback is huge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreweryYardRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
37. None. Raise the cap instead. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
39. None , I paid into it for my entire life starting at ae 14..I paid for it ..got that?
It was taken out of all my paychecks my entire life starting at age 14..I want what i paid for! Anything less is stealing from me!

And from every worker who paid into SS!

It would be worse than Highway robbery to take a penny from those of us who have funded our retirement funds of SS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #39
70. there's a propaganda campaign to shift perception on this -- that SS is unearned "dole."
it's not -- it's earned, paid for, and it's the backbone of our safety net. i don't want to live in a country that starves its seniors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
41. raise the cap and raise the tax
Raise the tax to 13% and/or eliminate the cap.

In 1993 Bill Clinton eliminated the medicare cap (medicare was capped at 90% of income like SS is). had he not done that medicare would be in far far worse shape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlabamaLibrul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
42. Who the FUCK voted for privatization and why? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. "democrats"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
48. Give it a few months. Once the Administration has released it's sales pitch,
Edited on Wed Aug-18-10 01:38 AM by Marr
the boosters will have a list of pragmatic, "adult" cuts to Social Security. They don't which cuts they support yet, because they haven't been told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. oh so true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
52. Cut the eligibility age for medicare to 0 and ss to 60.
I fully support these cuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Yes...
... these cuts are difficult but they must be made!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
61. I voted for raising the retirement age
But before doing that, we need to make jobs more secure. Cut H-1B visas, tax the hell out of outsourcing overseas work, raise taxes on imported goods, until our unemployment rate reaches acceptable levels.

There's no point raising a retirement age if there are no jobs to retire from.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. you don't have to answer this if you don't want to -- but can I ask how old you are?
are you within 5, 10, 20 years of retirement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. 64
and I just got laid off. So, if I don't find a job, then I guess I am already retired.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. and you'd be okay with raising the age right from under you. very altruistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. He is
64 and therefore already qualifies for SS since you can start receiving it at 62. Raising the retirement age would not affect him personally, but those in the 50-60 age group would be screwed. Typical, "I got mine" mindset at work here I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #67
71. Not altruistic, just greedy
I'd rather not be laid off, I'd rather work a few more years to save more money.

I would be eligible for "full" SS retirement at age 66. Or, I can collect a smaller monthly amount (early retirement) because I'm over 62.

If it looks like I'm not going to find work, if unsuccessful for another half year or so, then I'll probably go ahead and start collecting the lesser (early) SS amount.

It's unclear if the OP poll would raise the "full" retirement age to 70, or raise the "early" retirement age to 70. Either would be fine with me, if my damn job would have not gone overseas.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #71
73. Your reply makes zero sense.
You can't find a job as it is, but you would like to be left out in the cold for another five or six years? You think your situation is somehow unique? I am baffled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. Back to my original response
I support raising the retirement age, but only if the jobs are available, made secure by reducing or removing H-1B visas, and taxing the hell out of imports, including the importation of the products of outsourcing.

Right now, the government action rewards corporations for domestic job loss. In this environment, raising the retirement age makes little sense.

No, my situation is not unique. It's all too common.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. Why should poor people have to work until they are 70?
Why are you in favor of punishing everyone except the rich?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #79
87. he's putting on -- he doesn't believe any of that, for whatever reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #71
86. oh! i see. thanks for clarifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trayfoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
62. Befpre ANY cuts are made to SS,
the cap should be raised and the fund protected from general use by the government!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #62
66. when the question is presented to us, the way i presented it here...yours is the only right answer.
it's going to be presented as "the sensible thing" is to save it by cutting it. we have to counter that meme with force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #66
81. I just got an e-mail invitation from Grayson to pose a
question to the President, who apparently will be visiting the area. Here's what I suggested:

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has been dubbed the "Catfood Commission" because its goal appears to be cutting benefits so drastically that retirees will only be able to afford pet food. The administration has recently taken a stand against privatization of Social Security, but has not commented on whether it would support other types of across-the-board cuts, such as raising the retirement age. I won't be collecting Social Security for some time yet, but I'm concerned that the conversation has suddenly focused on privatization, which seems an unlikely possibility in any case, rather than on cuts, which seems to be the main focus of Congressional "deficit hawks." Will the administration stand firm against ANY cuts to Social Security benefits, particularly as the nation continues to spend hundreds of billions on the war in Afghanistan? Thank you.

A bit klunky, perhaps, but to the point. I was under pressure to answer Grayson's e-mail. Don't want him to think I don't care. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #62
78. Absolutely. It seems so obvious and yet???? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
77. The only change I would make is to remove ALL caps on income
exempted from paying into the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happy_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
84. I think we should cut gov't retirement and health care completely!
For the SOBs in Congress and the Senate and all the other gas bags living off the government dole in DC.

As for the rest of us, SS is not an entitlement, it is not welfare, it is money that people paid in for retirement and they want it back as promised. It is not too much to ask. It is the only way it's going to be done. That is our money, it is not for the wars, or the bailouts or whatever other crap they come up with to spend money on.

We need to change the meme ourselves, because the democratic party certainly wont.

If they want to cut costs, maybe take a look at all the military brass double dipping on pensions??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
88. Raise the cap. That's the only change we need. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
89. LOWER the SS retirement age to 60!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RussBLib Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
92. Eliminate all benefits for the rich
They still have to pay into the system, but get no benefits. And raise the cap from $95K to $500K.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #92
97. it would be nice if this idea were on the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
93. Why not add LOWER the retirement age?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. ...
eggsactly.

my point here was to demonstrate how the debate is being framed...so we don't get framed. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
94. I once knew a man
who had a boatload of money. He had no interest in collecting SS and believed wealthy sods like him shouldn't collect it. Considering the source I thought the idea had some merit.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. He doesn't have to. All he has to do is to never apply for it.
Many rich people don't because it's just another accounting annoyance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FooshIt Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
96. Take social security away from anyone with over 100K in liquid assets
problem solved
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. You do realize that one major illness could devastate that nest egg.
100k could be used up in no time, if diagnosed with a catastrophic illness. My share of cost ( with pretty good insurance) was 20k the first year of my son's illness (1991 dollars).
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 Thu Oct 17th 2019, 05:31 PM
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