58 or under? Your Social Security is getting cut

[MannyGoldstein]

if Obama's guys have their way:

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/100704-can-these-men-fix-the-deficit.html">Can These Men Fix the Deficit?

Obama has appointed The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a.k.a. The Social Security Commission, a.k.a. The Cat Food Commission, to solve the dire problem of Social Security going broke. Of course, the very premise of this game - that Social Security is going broke - is just crap made up by Republican lunatics. As http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/zombies-have-already-killed-the-deficit-commission">Paul Krugman explains:

OK, the immediate problem is the statements of Alan Simpson, the commission’s co-chairman. And what got reporters’ attention was the combination of incredible insensitivity – the “lesser people”??? — and flat errors of fact.

But it’s actually much worse than that. On Social Security, Simpson is repeating a zombie lie — that is, one of those misstatements that keeps being debunked, but keeps coming back.

Specifically, Simpson has resurrected the old nonsense about how Social Security will be bankrupt as soon as payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, never mind the quarter century of surpluses that came first.

...

So what does it mean that the co-chair of the commission is resurrecting this zombie lie? It means that at even the most basic level of discussion, either (a) he isn’t willing to deal in good faith or (b) the zombies have eaten his brain. And in either case, there’s no point going on with this farce.

And when one starts with a (fraudulent) premise that "Social Security doesn't have enough money", the only way to go is to cut benefits. My favorite mealy-mouthed quote from Simpson on this:

We’re not going to cut Social Security—we’re going to stabilize it. None of the ideas that have been presented will affect anyone over age 58. But we’re going to make the system work. As it is, it can’t sustain itself.

So, if you're 58 or under, you're about to get screwed. How screwed? If the eligibility age is moved from 65 to 70, as is the current trial balloon, that's more than $70,000 being pulled from your pocket.

For a fun (albeit marginally-audible) video of Simpson prevaricating as fast as he can, check out:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/06/17/alan-simpson-cutting-social-security-benefits-to-take-care-of-the-lesser-people-in-society">Alan Simpson: Cutting Social Security Benefits to “Take Care of the Lesser People in Society”

[mnhtnbb]

1. 59 here, but still not breathing easily. Simpson is not alone; his co-chair, Erskine Bowles

has been after SS ever since he was COS to Bill Clinton.

But, of course they'd rather cut SS than cut the defense budget or raise the cap for payroll
contributions.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Really? What did I write that's not correct?

Thanks in advance.

[MineralMan]

192. The title of the post.

No bill has been introduced. No vote has been taken. It's all just talk, yet your title screams, "We're all DOOMED!"

You're welcome.

[sabrina 1]

220. No, no bill has been introduced. But why hasn't it?

Whatever bill is going to be introduced should be done BEFORE November so that voters know how to vote. So I expect to see Obama denounce Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson and Erskine Bowle's 'recommendations' BEFORE the November election. They have been denounced by some of the country's most respected economists with Alan Simpson's outright lies having been exposed already. So what is Obama waiting for? Any assault on SS such as those being recommended by this Commission will I'm sure be slapped down as fast as possible by this administration. If they are not, then we know what will be in that bill.

Where do YOU stand on SS btw and what will do if Democrats accept those recommendations?

[MineralMan]

278. Where do I stand?

I think that the income cap should be completely removed on taxes paid into the system. That would completely remove any financial problems.

Further, I think that Medicare should be the core for a single-payer health system for the entire population, with a graduated premium schedule. Everyone would also be able to purchase supplemental insurance to cover co-pays.

For the record, I am a Social Security and Medicare recipient.

[sabrina 1]

302. Good, so what will you do if the Obama administration

supports the lies being told about Social Security by Alan Simpson? What will you do if Democrats go along with the privatization of SS and fulfill the decades long dreams of the Right? Especially since we know that it is one of, if not the only successful and solvent program we have today, not in danger of running out of funds, in fact it has a surplus. So, since there is virtually no reason to blame the deficit on SS, or to try to 'fix' it by privatizing it (which means gambling with people's retirement money on Wall St.) what will do if Democrats do not forcefully beat back any attempt to mess with SS?

I know for me that would end my association with the Democratic Party and I am far, far from being alone on that.

[MineralMan]

330. I absolutely expect nothing of the sort will happen.

If it does, then I'll react very negatively to it.

The OP's title said that such had already happened. That is not correct. It's fear-mongering.

[rhett o rick]

241. Pres Obama packed the Commission with corporatists, two are repukes

and one is a Demo sell out. Reason enough to panic.

Why would Pres Obama appoint Alan Simpson?

[Marr]

296. Yeah, and when the bill *is* introduced, there'll be a thousand excuses for why it's so "pragmatic".

[MineralMan]

297. Not from me there won't.

However, it is premature to trash a bill that does not exist. That is my objection. The OP's title reads as though it had already passed. There is no bill.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Changing the rules to take $70,000 out of our pockets

is not worthy of outrage?

Wow. You must be incredibly wealthy to not miss that cash, but we "lesser people" could sure use it.

[DJ13]

10. .....is not worthy of outrage?

Not to some people who know Obama is behind it.

He can do no wrong.

[Enthusiast]

118. It would make us lesser people

if we are not lesser to start with.

[bvar22]

280. The bottom 95% ARE "Lesser People" in the USA.

The Democratic Party just told us that we will just have to accept Far LESS Health Care than the rest of the Civilized World takes for granted....
And we're supposed to THANK them.

bvar22
--cursed by the knowledge of what IS possible

[Tailormyst]

180. It's just an inconvienent truth

and why should they trouble their beautiful minds with those?

Oh look, isn't Beau cute?

[Hannah Bell]

38. nothing manufactured about my anger over this duplicitous farce.

[Lost4words]

77. New Democrats,...... nt

[Lost4words]

74. you never use another emoticon do you

all you do is piss on people, You dont know what you dont know but you wave your ignorance like a flag of courage in the face of well meaning human beings.
It must make you feel better to dis others, and thats pretty sad,.....I am not surprised the party is going down the shitter with NEW Democrats like you.

I am putting you on ignore because when I see your ID, I already know what to expect so you have become a bore.

[inna]

103. +100

[Bluebear]

275. Can only imagine who that was!

[Bonobo]

18. Translation =

[AtomicKitten]

20. translation = preemptive horseshit

[MannyGoldstein]

21. I'm still waiting for your list of my inaccurate statements

Thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

25. You began with "IF" and the rest is pure speculation of the "be vewy afwaid" variety. nt

[madfloridian]

28. If you think it is just speculation you have not been reading the words

of the fine fellows on the fiscal commission.

[AtomicKitten]

32. Random quotes do not a policy make. You are constructing a boogyman. nt

[madfloridian]

37. It's been a long time, AK.

But it is time again. I do not intend to allow people here to keep insulting me.

I can't stop it, I have to take it. but I don't have to see it.

Bye.

[Robb]

46. Wait, what insult?

...Is disagreeing the new insulting?

You're no shrinking violet. Back your arguments up, I've seen you do it very, very well.

[Hannah Bell]

43. and simpson began with a pack of lies to drum up fear: "the chinese will hold our debt!"

"social security will go bankrupt!"

"it's not sustainable!"


who gave these sob's a mandate to touch social security?

it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT. or deficit.

lying, sleazy, fraudulent politics.

[CLANG]

193. Is "raising the cap" off the table... Dumb question!

[Bonobo]

47. Do you not know how things work?

First they float the balloons.

It is always the same and it always precedes the ral action.

It is in the air. It is obvious to those of us who have watched politics for a long time.

The bipartisan agreement signals what is coming.

There is nothing preemptive or manufactured here. Merely experienced observers observing.

[AtomicKitten]

112. Random quotes and opinion pieces are being used to construct a boogyman.

"Experienced observers?" Don't flatter yourself. It's nothing more than the same old horseshit that litters these boards 24/7. The perpetually disgruntled are merely feeding their perpetual state of outrage.

[hfojvt]

191. the "over $70,000" part is not accurate

that requires that people get benefits of over $1,166.67 per month.

For some reason, I can only find my social security statement from 2008, but back then my projected earnings were $22,924 which is way more than they are now.

Anyway, it says that if I retire at age 62 my benefits will be $656 a month, if I go until my full retirement age of 67, then my benefits will be $993 a month, and at age 70 they will be $1,257 a month.

So I am not sure where the whole 65 to 70 comes from as it now seems to be 62 or 67. Is it 65, 68 and 72 for my nieces and nephews?

[Warren Stupidity]

207. SSA says no.

What is the maximum monthly Social Security retirement benefit?

The maximum benefit depends on the age at which a worker chooses to retire. For a worker retiring at age 66 in 2010, the amount is $2,346. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5

4 * 12 * 2346 = 112608.00

So you are partially correct, 70,000 is not very accurate, it is way too low.

[hfojvt]

231. it's way too low if you are earning the "maximum taxable amount"

Strangely enough, many people are earning far less than the maximum taxable amount. SSA says the average benefit is $1,164 which is surprisingly high, considering that mine is going to be so low. Maybe lots of people wait until they are 70 to collect in order to get the higher benefits, or maybe they paid higher benefits in the past at 65.

[Tailormyst]

183. It's truly sad to watch personality trump truth. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

226. Speculation isn't truth. It's a parlor game at DU. nt

[madfloridian]

22. No, it is true.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Speculation isn't truth. It's chewing cud and freaking out preemptively. nt

[madfloridian]

31. Whoa, that was not very nice.

It really was not. It was not deserved. You apparently are not aware of the make-up of the commission and the words they have used.

[AtomicKitten]

34. Only you could personalize something that has nothing to do with you. nt

[madfloridian]

36. You responded to me. And that was not a nice response either.

[Dr.Phool]

86. It's called a warning.

[Hannah Bell]

95. yes, best to wait until it's too late to do anything.

[Enthusiast]

122. As with health care reform. nt

[avaistheone1]

203. +100

[Enthusiast]

120. The time to freak out is before

they fuck up, not after.

[Mimosa]

240. We have to pay attention and yell loudly or else we will be screwed

just like they screwed us with the FRAUDULENT health care reform.

[Enthusiast]

262. That's what I mean.

Now we know to be ready for betrayal.

[Marr]

298. Only the truly naive could fail to read this kind of writing on the wall.

Please-- stop being so obtuse. You're acting like you've never followed politics before.

I've noticed that the people urging everyone to "wait and see" are always the first to say, "shut-up, suck it up, it's over, move on" after the things they've denied were looming actually come to pass.

[AtomicKitten]

314. Sure thing. As soon as you stop being so knee jerk.

I repeat:

Do get back to us when any of the BS speculation in this thread comes to fruition.

Til then it's just a boogyman constructed of speculation, rumors, predictions, gum wrappers, and duct tape.

[tkmorris]

327. When the speculation in this thread comes to fruition

It will be too late to do anything about it. Perhaps that is alright with you, but not for me. I can see the writing on the wall, I need not wait for anyone to read it to me.

[Spike from MN]

329. Then there's the ever-popular

"The bill isn't perfect but hey, they'll go back and fix it later."

Just like the Military Commissions Act and so many others. Still waiting on the "fix" for those.

[donco6]

305. "Preemptively?"

So what *wouldn't* be preemptive in your book?

[L0oniX]

41. Not to mention the blatant repuke fear tactic. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

110. It's pure speculation and fear-mongering. nt

[Joe Fields]

62. I would like to ask you, just what the hell do you think this commission

is all about? Anyone with two brain cells to collide with each other can figure out that the commission is set up to screw millions of people. What makes you think that any outrage by average citizens is manufactured? I'm 54 and scared to death over what this administration is going to do to my benefits or my eligibility and you should be outraged too.

[Tailormyst]

186. The poster is more worried about defending Obama then looking at the truth

[tomp]

212. that seems apparent. nt

[AtomicKitten]

225. What truth? That something might/might not happen?

Do get back to us when any of the BS speculation in this thread comes to fruition.

Til then it's just a boogyman constructed of speculation, rumors, predictions, gum wrappers, and duct tape.

[Tailormyst]

247. I'll do that Kitty.

Even then, I doubt you will wake up. Obama will tell you cutting SS is good and you will nod in agreement. Suddenly what was bad is good, because if it was bad, Obama would not back it.

[AtomicKitten]

250. It is you trying to peddle speculation as truth. nt

[femrap]

217. I'm 57...

I wonder if Medicare will be postponed to 70? That's an even bigger scare, IMHO.

As an aside, regarding my latest medical visit: an x-ray of my hip and lumbar. Cost: $293 and $523, respectively. I opted just for the hip x-ray which has been giving much pain for quite a while.

I was given a stack of papers about 'privacy' and lots of info on living wills, including DNRs and other ABCs of dying. I asked the Clerk, where is the KMN? She looked at me rather funny. I said, 'You know, the Kill Me Now' clause. She didn't laugh. No one has a sense of humor anymore.

So I started on how much is Assisted Suicide going to cost when we old folks don't have the money for the life-saving procedures. I don't think I'll be going back to that particular OhioHealth clinic any time soon.

[rhett o rick]

249. Some still hang on to the belief that Democrats wont screw you.

But Pres Obama a Democrat, appoints a republican to do the screwing.

[burnsei sensei]

289. It's stocked with politicians,

not economists.
Enough said.

[sabrina 1]

94. Paul Krugman doesn't think so, neither does James Galbraith. Do

they go under that now over-crowded and infamous bus also? How many more signs of betrayal are needed before some party loyalists finally accept the fact that we were all taken for a ride?

I know this though, if they do this, the Democratic Party is over. This is the line in the sand for millions of Americans. If Obama does not come out strongly against Alan Simpson's lies, then there are no more questions to be asked. All of them will be answered by what he does about this.

And if they think that waiting 'til after November to attack the pittance that the 'lesser people' or 'old geezers' as Obama's choice for co-chair of his 'let them eat cat food Commission' calls America's elderly citizens, will fool anyone, they have another think coming to coin a phrase.

So, whose side are you on? The working class who paid into this program all of their lives, or the lying, cheating Rightwingers Obama chose whose dream of destroying the last successful New Deal program is coming pretty close to being realized. Bush couldn't get it done, but unless people fight this with everything they have, it looks like the Conservative dreams of that huge fund going to the Wall St. Casino, is about to happen with the help of a Democratic Administration.

They better commit to denouncing this BEFORE November, or we will be looking at an end to the Democratic Party as we knew it.

[Enthusiast]

124. There will be no more questions to

be asked. The answers will be clear. Then we will know what to do.

[sabrina 1]

271. We are at least a lot less trusting this time. We don't have to wait

expecting them to do the right thing, or trusting that they will AFTER the election. Now we know the questions to ask members of Congress. We trusted them on the Health Care Bill. Live and learn. I will ask anyone running for Congress 'what are you going to do to stop Alan Simpson and the rest of the Catfood Commission from attacking Social Security and from lying about it?'

I called Pelosi's office last week to ask about the report that she had slipped in a vote on this Commission's recommendations. I was directed voice mail. So far I have not received a response.

I think they need to know they are dealing with a very different situation than Health Care. People do not trust them anymore and there is an election coming up and they cannot hide behind waiting until it's over to take a stand on SS. We are not stupid. I'm sure they thought we were. Too trusting maybe, but not stupid.

[Enthusiast]

326. Your approach is sound.

No trusting this time around.

[Enthusiast]

125. Awesome post. nt

[TBF]

166. The party of FDR has been gone a long time.

We have had 30 years of extremely conservative rule in this country (including Bill NAFTA Clinton), and Obama's term will qualify as the most conservative if he keeps up with this privatization. Health Care was a done deal behind closed doors, as was the banking "scandal" in which our 401k's were stolen, the breaking of the auto unions, push to privatize the public schools, and now they are looting social security.

What are we going to do about it is the only thing we need to talk about at this point.

[Subdivisions]

209. 'What are we going to do about it is the only thing we need to talk about at this point.'

We'll do exactly what we've done regarding the war.


Oh, and btw, the war continues despite anything we've done.

[sabrina 1]

272. Agreed, I guess I was hoping that after the Bush years with a Dem

majority we would start turning things around. But that is not what's happening, so yes, the question is 'what do we do about it now'? I don't know but I'm thinking about it.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I'll take credit for Rec #5, just so everyone knows it got at least that high

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Thanks Stinky, I'm honored

You're an outstanding voice on this board.

[puzzlingpond]

61. I gave

you a recommendation also. I am new but found your post beneficial. Thanks.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. Welcome to DU!!!

Enjoy your stay - a dynamic place these days...

[Dr.Phool]

87. I'll raise you to 55!

[scheming daemons]

6. From the time I started working, I've always saved as if SS wouldn't be there when I retired....

Because I always expected as the baby boomers reached retirement age, they would cause the system to become unsustainable.


If it is there when I retire, great. But I'm planning as if I'll get ZERO.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Aren't you really pissed that this is happening?

It sounds like you're accepting this as expected behavior - other posters upstream are accusing me of "manufactured outrage".

Maybe nobody actually cares very much?

[scheming daemons]

14. After 20 years of accepting it as a fait accompli, I'm not pissed anymore. I don't have it in me...

... this is what I expected all along. I remember having conversations with coworkers back in the early '90s telling them that I'm planning my retirement as if Uncle Sam isn't going to give me a penny - because I expect congress to take it away before I get there.

[madfloridian]

24. We planned our retirement as well, but I hate to see Soc. Sec. harmed.

I am surprised how casually people take it.

[Go2Peace]

315. But it is all about **ME** right? As long as I am ok to hell wth the elderly poor?

I have a pension and savings and will probably be OK. But that still doesn't mean that we trash a system or change it in ways that are inhumane to many of our elderly who for many reasons will need it to survive.

I don't have much hope though. It seems most people, even so called "liberals", have no more concept of a society that takes care of it's people. They seem to think everything is about their own welfare, so as long as 60% of society is surviving to hell with the 40% who suffer. That's Democracy with no heart eh?

[customerserviceguy]

162. Same here

Anyone could see that the only thing that's kept the Social Security System as it's been structured for so long is the fact that taxes were jacked up just as the big baby boomer generation was entering the workforce. Since there wasn't (and won't be) any generations of that size subsequent, the scheme ran out of enough suckers to pay in to keep it afloat.

I've always said that if my generation doesn't change Social Security's finances, then my grandchildren's generation will be only too happy to put a bullet in my head before paying the onerous taxes needed to pay me the way that my parents and grandparents generations got paid.

[northernlights]

303. I saved all through the 80s and 90s too

I never expected social security to be there for me. I was on track for a decent retirement with about a quarter of a million saved by the time I was 48. And the the high tech crash came, and my career went into the toilet. I've been out of work almost 5 of the last 10 years. The savings are gone, replaced by school debt while I try to retrain desperately for something that pays better than customer service work (the only work out there). My last equity is my home, which I don't need to tell you is dropping like a rock.

My point being don't expect savings to help you either. They'll steal it through unemployment. If you invest in the stock market, that's rigged. Once you've got a nest egg to rob, they'll find a way to steal it. The whole system is so rigged it's pathetic.

Heck, I'm not even counting on assisted suicide. Luckily I'm studying medical technology, so I won't need any special help if and when the time comes...

[Go2Peace]

316. You just explained why MOST countries have an elderly pension system

And most of them are more stable. It is not that we *can't*, it is that we have been **convinced** it's impossible to have a society that cares for it's population. Welcome to "survival of the fittest" USA?

[wordpix]

13. that's great but some people don't make enough to save more than a few dollars a month

[Mimosa]

242. Exactly right, especially in this economy. n/t

[mmonk]

42. You may not require anything in life for your taxes.

But don't ask everybody else to do the same. And don't forget many "lesser" people that don't make enough to save.

[Go2Peace]

318. Thank God there are still a few liberals out there who understand compassion

I am surprised at how many "liberals" on this site think that everything comes down to only their personal welfare. No society can survive that way.

[eridani]

45. Horseshit. Boomers prepaid their retirement with the Reagan FICA increases

That's in addition to funding the ongoing program.

[Enthusiast]

127. +1 nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

176. +1000

[laughingliberal]

55. The baby boomers have not caused the system to be unsustainable. We paid in enough to support our

elders and create the surpluses that would be needed when we hit retirement. Now, they don't want to pay it back. They've stolen our payroll taxes to fund the tax cuts for the wealthy and they're going to leave us with nothing. Many of us have lost jobs in this horrible economy and our savings were rapidly depleted with no income. At 55 and not much hope for future employment, I was devastated to think I would now be faced with trying to live on my very meager (and dwindling every year I don't work) SS benefit. Now, they're going to steal that. It's disgusting.

[Enthusiast]

128. +1 nt

[femrap]

222. When are we

going to tax the f*cking RICH? I'm sick of it. Where is their 'sacrifice' during these 2 wars? Why do these f*cking politicians defend the poor widdle rich folks?

Class warfare is really starting to bubble...wait till that one bursts!

I'm 57 and pretty much in the same situation.

For some reason, the past couple of days, I have been so angry. And there's really no personal reason....maybe it's just how the 'stars' have aligned. I'd just like to kick that Tan Repugnant Dude in the shin while wearing steel-toed boots. Fantasies can be good. Simpson, too, of course....him, I would rather brand using a hot iron. Brand the words, 'Evilly Greedy.' Or Greedily Evil? Whichever.

This is all fantasy and sarcasm, Mods. Just writing a fictional account of Class Warfare.

[dflprincess]

91. But Social Security is sustainable

But its surplus has been plundered to pay for two wars of choice.

[Enthusiast]

129. +1 nt

[Hannah Bell]

96. The system IS sustainable. There is no question of it being unsustainable. It's being DELIBERATELY

destroyed.

[Enthusiast]

130. Exactly. nt

[Mimosa]

244. Hannah, you are a hero. I hope you teach the politicians. n/t

[Enthusiast]

126. Some don't have the option

of this planning you speak of. Ever hear how the U.S. has an incredibly low savings rate? I'm sure it is even lower for those in or slightly above the poverty level.

[sabrina 1]

274. The system is NOT unsustainable, far from it. That is a rightwing

lie that has been told for decades. SS is solvent, in fact it still has a surplus and will not be in trouble for decades. You need to stop reading the Cat Commission's lies and start reading people like James Galbraith, Paul Krugman and others. The Republican propaganda machine is loud, they clearly have drowned out the voices of those who actually know what they are talking about.

I'm sorry you've lost the will to fight, but many of us are just beginning. To hear those same rightwing lies now coming from a Democratic appointed committee with no response from this WH is simply unbelievable.

And, I'm glad you were able to save, most people knew SS would not support them in their old age, but it helps, and for some it is virtually all they have. Just because we have no need to worry, for whatever reason, too young, too rich or whatever, doesn't mean we should just let the Republicans get their long held wish to grab that enormous fund and gamble with it on Wall St.

None of the 'fixes' we are hearing from Alan (let the old geezers starve) are necessary at all because SS has nothing to do with the deficit and it is not in trouble. The baby boomers also are not an issue, another rightwing lie.

[IndianaGreen]

8. They are scutlling Medicare as well!

I just got an e-mail from a friend:

BOSTON — The heads of President Barack Obama's national debt commission painted a gloomy picture Sunday as the United States struggles to get its spending under control.

Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles told a meeting of the National Governors Association that everything needs to be considered — including curtailing popular tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, and instituting a financial trigger mechanism for gaining Medicare coverage.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjH33p-VSyKEXwM6yjjxjCxgZ7lAD9GT2LM80

Cutting or eliminating the mortgage deduction, a major hit to middle class families, and basing Medicare on income rather than age, a major betrayal to all seniors.

[nightrain]

29. thank you for posting that. Incredible that Dems are considering dropping the safety net for so

many of us!

[Enthusiast]

131. And no talk of tax cuts for the

oil industry.

[G_j]

11. I thought SS was theThird Rail of politics?

remember, nothing is sacred, or safe.

58 here

[mmonk]

190. Predatory and libertarian economic theory has replaced it.

[sabrina 1]

336. It was for Bush. They decided that they needed to get a Democrat

to do SS. Like getting a Republican to do China.

I hope we make this extremely difficult for them. They need to know, this is isn't the same population who were unaware of their dirty political tactics when they started out manipulating public opinion with lies. We are on to them now.

[wordpix]

12. well if they're moving the retirement age to 70, there should be some JOBS out there for seniors

otherwise, lots of oldsters will be on welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.. which could cost more than Soc. Sec

[laughingliberal]

59. That's what so diabolical about it

Those of us who lost jobs or had our businesses fail in this horrible economy have little chance of ever seeing a paycheck again and our meager benefits are going down with every year our earnings are gone or non-existent. Now, they want to make us wait 5 more years, by which time our estimated benefit will be nil and a lot us will be long gone. I have no doubt it's part of the calculation.

[era veteran]

151. Learned it from the VA, dead citizens are cheaper

At 56 years old I have already had the age based decision to be drafted in the last lottery they conscripted people in ( I joined ) I have such a broken body I doubt I'll live much past 70. " the government uses you and throws you the fuck away!"
I have ben paying in since the minimum wage was $1.60 an hour. Hope things get better for you. Peace, Richard

[laughingliberal]

202. Thank you for the good wishes. The same to you. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Unrec-ers swooping in...

Unbelievable that people would want this hidden.

[scheming daemons]

16. I didn't unrec you, Manny.... I just can't build up the outrage that you have here

[madfloridian]

23. You are not outraged over billions for war but cuts for older folks?

I am.

[MissDeeds]

160. I am too

I'd expect this of a Republican administration. :mad:

[SammyWinstonJack]

177. GW tried this and couldn't get it done. Never expected this from a Democratic admin. either.

:grr:

[rhett o rick]

246. Well begin expecting it. There are a lot of Demo corporatist sell-outs. nm

[Poboy]

307. Indeed. We are being attacked by those we elected to defend us.

This is some sick shit here.

[noamnety]

53. Some people only feel outrage

when an issue affects them directly. Issues that don't affect them directly are known as "pet issues." Issues that affect us are important, but pet issues - that's what other people have.

If you don't personally need a safety net, it's easier to shrug and say yeah that's bad, but let's keep it in perspective (i.e. let's marginalize it). If you don't personally need a safety net, if you weren't personally wiped out by a medical crisis or layoffs or hurricanes, or oil spills, it's a lot easier not just to marginalize the issue, but also to marginalize the people it affects.

When we live comfortably, it's easy to dismiss others as people who simply weren't "smart" enough to accumulate hundreds of thousands of excess dollars over the years. Smart responsible people aren't poor. Right?

[Enthusiast]

133. The incredible waste

during the Iraq War doesn't cause you outrage? KBR leased the U.S. government standard SUVs for $5000/month. All the money thrown down a rat hole to reward Bush's buds during the war and you are okay with gutting social security? Yes, you saved for yourself but most did not.

[Enthusiast]

132. They can't tolerate anything

that might be critical of Obama.

[SammyWinstonJack]

178. +1. nt

[unkachuck]

19. K&R....n/t

[doc03]

26. The current unreduced retirement age for someone 58 is now

66 not 65. Anyway these are just trial balloons they are putting out nothing has been done yet. Instead of raising the full retirement age why not raise the minimum a year or two, how many die before they reach 70 anyway? The whole problem could be solved if they terminated old people at the age of 77. It's actually on the SS site, I read it, whether you retire at 62 or 67 you will recieve the same total benefits at 77 and so many months. You retire at 62 you get less money but you recieve it over a longer time period. If you wait to 67 you get more money over a shorter period they both come out the same at 77. The people that screw up the system are the ones that live too long. What we need is death panels.:scared:

[virgogal]

35. I'm one of tjose that has lived too long. Cheers !!!!!!

[L0oniX]

44. As I read my yearly SS statement ...I get full benefits at age 70. They start at 66.

They do have a lot of balls bringing this all up. Fortunately for them they are not up for re-election but those that are behind this should have some fear about getting re-elected be they dem or repuke.

[Enthusiast]

134. Don't think they haven't considered it.

"Soylent Green is people!"

[femrap]

224. I think about that.

I just saw the movie again....for the first time since its release. I thought maybe the movie had been shelved...I hadn't seen it advertised ever.

The women are all sexual slaves. The environment is gone.

Sometimes I think movies are there to 'prepare us.' OK, where is my :tinfoilhat: ?

[glitch]

30. This guy should be on the commission:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/11-5

[Enthusiast]

136. I agree, Galbraith could inject some

truth into the Catfood Commission.

[inna]

323. great article. must read, imo.

[scarletwoman]

33. k&r - kill this stupid commission now.

Between the "zombie lies" (thank you, Paul Krugman!) and Bowles claiming that "no one could have forseen" the financial crash, these idiot assholes aren't even qualified to be dog walkers, much less deciding the fate of Social Security.

:nuke:

[Enthusiast]

137. Yes, just kill it.

It is stacked too far to one side and entirely unreasonable.

[johnaries]

39. Ahhhhh, no. You really need to change your title, because it's not true.

OK, first of all the Commission itself requires 14 of 18 members to agree to a recommendation, and considering the make-up of the commission it's doubtful they will be able to reach agreement on many things, if anything at all. Secondly, all they are doing is making recommendations to Congress. Both the Senate and the House must vote and approve the recommendations. That's going to be a very high hurdle if they happen to recommend any radical changes.

While it is true that they are looking at Social Security, there have been MANY options discussed. Including raising the cap. There have also been discussions of adjusting the annual Cost Of Living Adjustment, either by cutting it directly by 1% or by tying it to Cost Of Living index rather than the Wage index. There have been MANY other options discussed. Including, yes, delaying the age of full benefits either by tying it to life expectancy or raising it incrementally as they did once before.

So it is just as likely that they will decide to raise the cap as it is that they will raise the age of full benefits. What si most likely is a combination of raising the cap and some minor adjustment in benefits.

But even if they can agree on a recommendation for SS, it still has to pass both the Senate and then the House as I said.

Fear-mongering doesn't do anyone any good. The thing to do is wait and see what recommendations are made, and then if any of them are unacceptable to protest to Congress.

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Where have you seen raising the cap floated?

I've seen raising the age highlighted. How dare they even suggest that! Add to this the flaming prevarication, and it's a looming disaster for working Americans.

[johnaries]

51. Several of the members support raising the cap and have

discussed it repeatedly. But it's not outrageous enough to make it into fear-mongering reports.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Any links?

Thanks.

[johnaries]

65. Try Googling the individual members names + Social Security.

That's what I did. There were too many of them for me to do it tonight since I have to work in the morning. But it gives you a much better idea of where each member stands. Oh, and I also had to Google the Rockefeller Institute since Ann whats-her-name had no stated position but is on the Board. They had a very detailed paper of the whole Social Security debate. It's definitely worth reading!

[enlightenment]

75. In your opinion it's not outrageous enough.

That doesn't mean it isn't outrageous enough for others - unless someone died and appointed you the Grand Decider of What is Worthy of Outrage.

Did I miss the memo?

[brentspeak]

50. Wrong. The thing to do is to ignore your "advice"

and immediately make both Congress and Obama know in advance that benefit cuts and any raise in retirement age will mean the end of their political careers.

You are, after all, the same one who tried to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=363340#363615">push the baloney that Obama wasn't responsible for whoever got appointed to the other 2/3 of his commission -- completely neglecting to mention that it was Obama himself who created and approved the commission composition rules in the first place.

[johnaries]

60. Fine. Get outraged over something that has not happened

and probably won't. And the link I put in that post provided full information on the creation of the commission. And 2/3 of the commission were not appointed by Obama, as I also detailed in the post. Therefore, he could not have "stacked it" as the OP claimed. It was designed to be a bi-partisan commission.

Are you claiming that Obama told Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, and whats-his-name who to appoint?

[MannyGoldstein]

64. We should wait until the damage is complete?

I think we need to be thoughtful when a committee, commissioned by the President of the United States, tells us that they may want to grab vast sums from working Americans.

[johnaries]

69. No, you should wait and see what they actually recommend. Then

petition Congress when it actually counts. As I said, it's doubtful they'll recommend anything radical or major.

But, you can also plan to attend one of their public forums.

More information is at their website http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

[femrap]

227. You are aware of simpson's

reputation regarding SS, aren't you? He is the Anti-SS. And why Obama would put him, of ALL f*cking people to co-chair this commission, says more than all the pages in all the newspapers.

Obama is not what he appears. He does as TPTB tell him. He is a political minion.

[johnaries]

70. No, you should wait and see what they actually recommend. Then

petition Congress when it actually counts. As I said, it's doubtful they'll recommend anything radical or major.

But, you can also plan to attend one of their public forums.

More information is at their website http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

[inna]

105. no, YOU wait and see.

stop trying to silence people, it's fucking disgusting.

[Enthusiast]

139. +1 nt

[Dr.Phool]

90. Commissions are for cowards.

Whenever the president or Congress wants to do something that will enrage the populace, they appoint a commission to make the changes.

Obama wanted the commission to make it's recommendations, and force a mandatory vote, without the ability to amend it, or make changes. The Republicans, in their knee-jerk obstinancy, and block everything mentality, actually did the right thing for a change, and dropped the mandatory vote.

However, enter Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and they back-doored the rules on another bill to force a vote anyway. By a lame duck session, after the election no less.

------------------------------------------------

I'm 58 years old now, and my body is already broken. I can't work now, much less until I'm 70. My wife turns 62 next month, but she has to keep her low-paying, foster care, and adoption agency job so that we still have access to health insurance.

[Hannah Bell]

121. +100. It's how the first attack on social security under reagan went in.

[brentspeak]

71. Again, you fail to point out that it was Obama who designed it to be a bipartisan committee

That is a purposeful, blatant omission on your part. Obama was under no obligation whatsoever to allow any Republicans on his commission. He, and he alone, is responsible for the fact that this bogus commission is packed with to the gills with stooges hostile to Social Security and Medicare. Could you imagine TR, FDR, Truman, or even Ike deliberately harming their own executive efforts?

[Raineyb]

161. If you wait until it happens it'll already be too late.

Don't you pay attention to how politics work in this country?

[rhett o rick]

251. The commission is stacked against the working people. The Pres did us no favors.

If you think the commission is bi-partisan, you havent been paying attention.

[inna]

106. Obama appointed the commission by his EXECUTIVE ORDER, against the will of Congress.

That alone says it all.

It's his monster that he created.

[Hannah Bell]

123. i didn't know that. wow. his initiative.

[inna]

144. Yes. It's amazing that that fact isn't stressed enough and most people are not aware of it.

Moreover, Obama is even PAYING for the commission. It's his ugly creation, the result of his executive order AFTER the Senate (!) voted against the commission.

Executive Order

Obama created the debt commission in February by executive order after the Senate refused to do so through legislation. Its budget came from money the White House reserves for unanticipated expenses, Reed said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-25/obama-s-deficit-cutting-commission-has-tight-fisted-budget-to-do-its-work.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=obama+deficit+commission+executive+order+congress&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

[Hannah Bell]

147. taking it from that budget i'd guess removes the necessity for congress to vote funds. wow again.

i can see a benefit to both the exec & congress in that.

[Enthusiast]

138. Thank you. nt

[Hannah Bell]

98. "a very high hurdle" - lame duck session, thanks to pelosi. not so high.

[L0oniX]

40. Fear! ...it's a repuke tactic! I don't believe it will happen.

They can go fear that they will not get re-elected be they dem or repuke! FOR FUCKS SAKE ...STOP SCREWING THE PEOPLE!

Want to fix the debt problem ...reduce the fucking defense spending ...for fucks sake ..the fucking Russians are spending 50 billion total this year ...WTF ...there is no justification for the US spending over a fucking trillion dollars on defense. Fuck them and fuck everything they fucking stand for!

[depakid]

54. A cowardly nation heavily dependent on resources from abroad will never reduce defense spending

They'll impoverish themselves first- with a relatively few wealthy an a LOT of people doing without.

[Enthusiast]

140. What about the terrists?

Aren't you a sceered of the terrists? Are you a real Merican? :sarcasm:

[voteearlyvoteoften]

48. Um they have already raised the retirement age

It is already 66 and up by increments to 67 for all boomers. look it up.

[Beacool]

56. My age group is at the 67 range.

At the rate we're going, I'll be working into my 80s......

;(

[dflprincess]

92. I'm at the 66 point

but - per my last statement from Social Security, if I keep working until I'm 70 I'll collect just over $500 more per month. I figure I'll need that to pay for my Medicare supplement.

And, just think, the French are upset over their retirement age being raised to 62. :banghead:

[Enthusiast]

141. Apparently corporate government

doesn't control the people of France.

[laughingliberal]

63. Yes. I'm 55 and my age for full benefits is 66 & 2 mos. nt

[NorthCarolina]

174. Correction: "was 66 & 2 mos"

nt

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

158. Got evidence of that?

Thanks in advance.

[DCBob]

213. Just idle speculation.. sorry if I'm wrong..

but you got evidence that you weren't?

[Warren Stupidity]

221. So you issued that personal attack based on nothing?

real nice.

[Raineyb]

165. That's rich coming from the person advocating for a Republican. n/t

[DCBob]

214. Oh dear, not you again.. you sure are persistent... I would never ever advocate for a Republican..

unless one happened to come clean and sincerely change his persuasion and then supporting him would actually help Democrats and America in the long run, then maybe. Other than that, NO F'KING WAY!

[Raineyb]

328. Rationalize it all you want but you're advocating for Crist and Crist

despite his split with the Republican party is STILL a Republican.

[rhett o rick]

253. That's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up? nm

[donco6]

306. Alerted. Or you can delete it yourself.

Your choice.

[donco6]

320. Thank you. n/t

[hay rick]

57. Commissions are good.

Now I'm waiting for the commission on restoring the top marginal income tax rate to 91%.

I'm waiting for the commission that's going to recommend that we get out of Afghanistan yesterday and put the war funding appropriations to some constructive use like aid to states, extending unemployment, or repairing our disintegrating infrastructure.

I'm waiting for the commission that's going to recommend that we adopt a single-payer, universal health care plan.

I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Bonobo]

67. Good for floating balloons especially.

Nice way to get an idea that you want to promote entered into the public mind without having to take responsibility for it.

[jeanpalmer]

93. A commission on healthcare

would have been great. A commission should primarily be fact finding body, e.g. the commission on the JFK assasination. A commission on healthcare could have brought all the facts together in a wide-ranging inquiry and proposed various solutions. Unfortunately, the healthcare "debate" and outcome was rigged from the start to ignore the facts and reach a predetermined outcome -- mandated private insurance.

It's the same here. A commission really is not needed for deficit reduction of the type being considered. The facts are all known -- the CBO has all of them. The commission is needed not to gather facts about reducing the deficit but to provide cover to politicians for a predetermined outcome -- entitlement reduction. If it really was a commission to reduce the deficit, as Galbraith pointed out, it would consider increasing government spending, as in more stimulus. This commission is nothing more than a front.

A much needed commission is one on job creation. How do we get the country back to full employment? That would be a great commission because there really is a need to determine why jobs have been lost and what we can do to get them back. Of course such a commission would have to face up to the effects of outsourcing, H1-B visas, and a whole host of other controversial topics and that's why there will never be such a commission.

[scarletwoman]

102. Well said! Excellent post!

:applause:

[jeanpalmer]

111. Thank you. n/t

[Enthusiast]

143. Yes, we wouldn't want to

face facts on job creation.

[hay rick]

152. Job creation commission!

Add that to my list, right at the top. Does anyone in Washington have that kind of courage?

[amandabeech]

245. #1,000,000. n/t

[susanwy]

304. +100000

This should be its own post!

:thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

142. Reasonable commissions could

have come to your conclusions.

[Bryn]

58. K&R

This needs to be watched. Save Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid net.

[Bluebear]

68. And upthread this is being called "manufactured outrage"

What a disgrace.

[ProSense]

76. What are you going to say when

they don't cut Social Security?

This is all speculation, and people are fanning it with more speculation.

Krugman can call out Simpson on his statements, but that doesn't mean that the commission plans to cut Social Security benefits.

Frankly, the whole notion is ludicrous. Democrats did not fight to kill Bush's privatization scheme to turn around and gut the program.

[scarletwoman]

78. Then we will say, "Thank gawd we raised a ruckus before they tried to get away with that shit."

It's called being proactive. You let the bastards know from the getgo that you're not going to put up with getting screwed. Otherwise they WILL screw you, because that's what bastards like Simpson and Bowles et al do.

[ProSense]

80. Sounds like

it's called building a straw man to knock it down.

[scarletwoman]

81. You wanna trust those people, go ahead. I don't. Not for one minute. nt

[NorthCarolina]

172. Oh please, spare us the disingenuous clap trap.

:eyes: While you may have convinced yourself, I highly doubt you can convince anyone with a little brain matter left that the Debt Commission was set up to accomplish exactly "nothing" with regard to Social Security and Medicare. The words of Alan Simpson speak loudly and clearly with respect to the purpose of this Commission, and your one liners intended to deflect criticism so that the Commissions dirty work can be accomplished unabated, I hope falls on deaf ears.

[donco6]

308. I'd say it's simply using your good sense and powers of observation.

We've seen it all before, and we're not letting it happen again. Sorry to disappoint.

[20score]

85. How about we turn that around. What will you say when the people who have been right

most often, are proven right again and they do come out with proposed cuts? Will you be humble and apologize? Maybe fight to do what's right? Or will you say that the cuts are necessary and you were behind them all the time?

You know, like getting rid of the public option. Remember that?

[Hannah Bell]

100. not a goddamn thing. off to the memory hole, as usual. never to be mentioned again.

denied, as if it never happened.

[saracat]

115. Didn't you say something like this about the Public Option? I am sure you will defend

the Admin if Social Security and Medicare are cut OR reduced.You' ll have the talking points ready. Just cut and paste. Meanwhile , soldiers are being offered $90,000 to sign up to go to Iraq, They are paying young family men who can't find jobs $90,000. and we are talking about cutting SS and Medicare? And we can't afford unemployment insurance? And we can't have a JOBS program? I just wanna know how you will justify this IF they do it because you will.

[donco6]

309. She and many others.

Who continue to advise the same course of action this time.

[Marr]

300. What are you going to say when they do?

I expect you'll have a collection of bullet points that explain why it 'had to be done', and was so 'sober and pragmatic'.

[on point]

72. The easy fix is to raise the cut-off income level of the tax to 200K.

There is no real problem at the moment with SSI as Krugman says, but there will be a shortfall sometime in 2030.

[Juche]

73. Does simpson not understand the difference between lifespan and life expectancy?

People didn't drop dead at 57 back in the 30s. Children died of malnutrition and disease, which brought overall life expectancy down.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Life expectancy at 60 for white men and women has only gone up 6-7 years from 1940 to 2004. It has only gone up 4-6 years among non-whites.

Back in 1940 a 60 year old white man could expect to live to 75. Now he can expect to live to 81. Not a huge difference.

[hay rick]

97. Huge difference, actually.

A person who starts collecting SS at 65 and dies at 75 collects benefits for 10 years. A person who starts collecting at 65 and dies at 81 collects benefits for 16 years. That's a 60% increase in outlays for those beneficiaries.

The increase in life expectancy since 1983 is presumably less dramatic and is at least partially offset by increases in retirement age and inadequate COLAs.

Sadly, there is a good chance that increases in life expectancy will stop, or even be reversed, by rapidly expanding poverty among the elderly and runaway health care costs.

[Hannah Bell]

104. Life expectancy of someone who was 65 in 1940, the first year regular benefits were paid, = 12.8.

In 1997 = 17.7

4.9 years difference.

For men, only 3.8 years difference.

and if you explore the class & race differences, you find that well-off white women gained disproportionately.

In the last decade there have actually been declines in life expectancy among some groups of low-income people.

And the increase in healthy years (which would allow someone to continue working if necessary) have been less than 4.9.

http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

[eridani]

135. I've got slightly different numbers for life expectancy from age 65

65 is more relevant than 60, I think

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus030.pdf

NEW HEALTH STATISTICS from the CDC show these death trends over the past 50 years:

Heart disease down 64%
Colon and related cancers down 31%
Prostate cancer up 3%
Breast cancer down 15%
Male diabetes up 47%
Female diabetes down 14%
Motor vehicle fatalities down 46%
Suicide down 20%
Murder up 20%
HIV down 66% since 1990
Life expectancy at 65 years for males up 3.5 years
Life expectancy at 65 years for females up 4.2 years

[cornermouse]

148. I wouldn't know.

My dad retired at the age of 62 and died a year later unexpectedly. Had he been born a few years later, he would have died without ever getting to retire. It increasingly looks like that probably would have made those at the top of both parties happy.

[Alameda]

79. Social Security has already been cut.

You used to be able to get full benefits at the age of 65, now it's 2 months for every year past 1938 until you get to 1943, then it's 66. They were very sneaky how they slipped that through.

[Enthusiast]

146. Just as they are being sneaky this time.

They want to spring it on us so we don't have time to react.

[tex-wyo-dem]

82. Simpson needs to crawl back under the cow patty from whence he came...

That asshole has been stinking up the joint for far too long. This coming from someone who had the "pleasure" of sitting at the same dinner table with him when I was in college...needless to say, couldn't finish my meal due to nausea.

[havocmom]

83. worked all my life. Paid in, and employers paid in. Won't live to see a dime

Makes me a very dangerous loose cannon.

[KeyWester]

157. So ...

you think your SS will be cut to zero ?

Thanks for playing

[havocmom]

284. No, won't live long enought to even reach eligibility

Thanks for being callous and short of sight

[20score]

84. Thanks for posting. K&R

[senseandsensibility]

88. kand r

So true.

[OmahaBlueDog]

89. I'll get flamed: I don't see the problem

Social Security wasn't designed to pay out benefits to so many people for so long. My only surprise is that they aren't talking more about an age like 72 or 73 -- maybe even 75. If you are 45 now, and you don't get shor or hit by another car or crash in a plane, there's a reasonable shot you'll live to 110. Your pay in over 45 years (say 20 to 65) won't be enough to support you at current benefit levels for another 45 years (65-110). It's not politics, it's just math.

FYI, I'm 45. And, no, I did not support privatizing Social Security.

[eilen]

163. Almost no one lives that long

Extrapolating numbers denies that people do have a lifespan and it is fairly inelastic. One can be healthy, high functioning etc. but at some point the cells change and poof you have leukemia and you won't survive the treatment in your 90's.

Medical science has increased our health and ability to live longer with some conditions but it hasn't cured coronary heart disease nor cancer. Plus, environmental poisons have increased over this same time period making cancers and autoimmune disease more prevalent. We may live longer but we need more and increasing expensive care to stay that way.

[donco6]

310. Well, from someone called "bluedog" that's not surprising. n/t

[lib2DaBone]

99. It's not fear.. they are coming for Social Security... I wish it was just a fear tactic..

From Alan Simpson's lips direct to your ears,... "We took the money out of Social Security and spent it on other stuff... now we can't pay it back... so it's your fault and you are going to have to pay for it."

Well, I paraphrased a little.. but quite accurate.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

101. I don't understand why the outrage

from what I understand, raising the retirement age to 70 IS being considered (for me, I am 52). Cutting benefits IS being considered.

Threads like this help me get my voice heard. I hope those on the commission are listening. I say, RAISE THE CAP, dammit. Raise the retirement age, or cut benefits and deal with the anger, and I do mean motivating, burning anger.

I believe threads like this help us to be proactive. Fear-mongering? Hell yes, as a 52 year old, and I am damn afraid they will raise the retirement age. The very fact it is on the table means they are considering it. I need to know what the options are since it will effect me in approx 10 years.

[MiniMe]

107. +1

I'm the same age and currently unemployed. I've been saving for my retirement since my 20's, and now I am spending it to pay the mortgage. I'm paying attention to this.

[SILVER__FOX52]

108. What the fuck is going on in this Country?

Zobama gets elected for change and he acts like a Republican? Has some Republican Zombie eaten his GD brain. I shit you not, I can't fucking understand what the hell is going on? Christ, I'm starting to hate this fucking liar.

[Major Hogwash]

109. Why is Homer's brother on this commission to begin with? Why not appoint a true Nazi next time?

Doh!

[EmeraldCityGrl]

113. To even suggest this is conformation they do not care about the

American people. People are struggling consumed with worry and now they have to worry about the
one thing promised to them that they thought they could rely on. These rich bastards have no idea how
Seniors struggle. I know three older women that only survive by pooling their SS. They eat one meal a day
buy nothing, go nowhere. This will not only hurt Seniors, but the middle-class. Families will once again
have to stretch the little they have to care for their older relatives.

I just hate our government right now and I'm not alone. If Obama though making this a non-partisan committee
would some how salvage his and the Dems responsibility for this, he is sadly mistaken. This is unforgivable.

[jtuck004]

114. k&r and thank you n.t.

[Sherman A1]

116. There is this one little factor to remember

before anything happens.....

The US Congress.... For the most part I understand that they enjoy being re-elected.

[Divine Discontent]

119. exactly! what a quick way to have their opponent be elected.

[Enthusiast]

117. If the Democrats allow this,

specifically Obama because he can veto it, I am done with them.

[Mimosa]

248. What will Obama veto? has he vetoed anything yet? n/t

[RubyDuby in GA]

149. I came to the sad realization years ago that I will never see a dime of all that I put in

I'm glad my grandmother was able to live off it for a while and I hope my parents enjoy theirs, but I'm 36 and I know it won't be there for me.

[Hannah Bell]

150. only if you let them destroy it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

198. how do we stop them?

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

264. what would you do if someone was trying to rob you?

it's not that complicated. efforts may not succeed, but no action = certain failure.

publicize, criticize, organize.

the usual: contact & petition legislators, repeatedly, plus:

do you know 5 people who might be concerned with this issue? get together & start a local campaign to get the word out.

[Sherman A1]

279. The ballot box, perchance?

[TBF]

168. And that makes it ok for them to steal our money? I'm still pissed as hell

about the looting of the 401Ks. Do you all have so much money that it doesn't matter to you?

[blindpig]

189. Buck up

Do not be lulled into paralysis by Vogon poetry.

Resistance is not futile. It is all we got, time to exercise it or else go like lambs to the slaughter.

[glitch]

204. Lol! "Do not be lulled into paralysis by Vogon poetry." Thanks for that. nt

[alphafemale]

153. I've never expected to see any of it anyway. nt

[Prophet 451]

154. What the fuck is the problem?

Any short fall in Social Security would be a piece of piss to make up. Two people of reasonable intent could sit down and solve the problem in an hour but that would require people who were both reasonable (ruling out the Repubs) and committed to not destroying SS (which rules out the current admin, apparently). The most obvious solution, since military spending is sacred in Washington, is to raise or eliminate the cap.

Likewise, Medicare is not in trouble. Here (England), we manage to run a complete national health system, free at point of delivery and we're a tiny island with one fifth the population (granted, the NHS is a long way from perfect but it's better than not getting treatment at all).

And all of this is based on the basic lie that the deficit is out of control and needs cutting. The deficit is not out of control. Deficit spending during a recession is basic Keynesian economics and as for the scaremongering that "China will hold our debt", so what? China is not going to call in those debts because it would make all the other American debts they hold worthless (and, knowing how the USA does things, possibly get them bombed). Basic Keynesian economics says that during a recession, you cut taxes (preferably on the working class who will spend it) and spend to get the economy moving again. When the recession is over, then you use taxes and savings to build up a surplus. That's how Keynes wrote it down, that's the pattern Clinton followed and it led to eight years of growth and a whacking great surplus.

But no, the elites that drove the economy off the cliff in the first place see their opportunity to impose draconian cuts. Hell, the bastards are vicious enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the economy had been deliberately crashed to create that opportunity (note, I don't actually think that happened but I wouldn't be surprised). Our government here are doing the same, imposing harsh "austerity" measures in the interests of "saving" us from a debt crisis that doesn't really exist. Fuckers wrecked the economy and the worst they're suffering is one less bottle of Chateau LaFitte at dinner while us, the poor bastards stuck at street level, get fucked up the arse without even the courtesy of lube.

Forgive the colorful metaphor, I'm fucking angry.

[RBInMaine]

155. This is just an ADVISORY committee, so calm the hell down. These responses are really over the top.

There is a very large deficit, and a bunch of ideas are being tossed around from entititlement reform to new taxes of various kinds. So just calm down. There is nothing official yet, and no new law proposals yet. Any actual deficit reduction bills would have to go through the long complex legislative process. So just relax.

[MannyGoldstein]

167. This things on greased rails - Pelosi's got the vote set

http://firedoglake.com/2010/07/01/breaking-pelosi-sneaks-approval-of-vote-on-debt-commission-recommendations-into-rule-regarding-war-funding">BREAKING: Pelosi Sneaked Approval of Vote on Debt Commission Recommendations into Rule Regarding War Funding, Vote Happening Tonight

Update III: Pelosi got her wish. The House will have to give an up-or-down vote to whatever the Catfood Commission recommends. With Republicans and Blue Dog votes alone, cuts to Social Security benefits should have no trouble passing.

Obama's got this thing choreographed from start to finish.

[RBInMaine]

175. FDL? Take that one with a HUGE grain of salt. Any real changes would go through a MASSIVE

legislative process, months of committee work, etc. etc. etc. You don't just "sneak" all of these huge changes into one amendment of one bill. Get real.

[TBF]

169. I'm going to bookmark this so I can bring it back after

everything passes. You are very naive if you think they don't know what they're doing with this.

[Tsiyu]

156. America has completely gone to the dogs

I never thought I would see the day when wealthy Americans pulled the rug out from the elderly in this country.

They have thousands of places to find money, thousands of wealthy elites who can pay taxes to support the system that supports THEM so well - with all the deregulation, loopholes and publicly funded security for the rich our nation supports the elites VERY well - but instead they want to take it out of my pocket.

It's disgusting and absolutely embarrassing to realize just how low are the scum running this nation.

I seriously fear for myself and all who are destined to be screwed by the wealthy Americans - AGAIN - and I send my own personal POX on the Cat Food Commission and every American who agrees with cutting SS so the RICH can get RICHER.


These are despicable pigs. PIGS.

[peace frog]

164. Huge ITA here

Un-fricking-believable. I've abandoned hope.

[Tsiyu]

196. I've switched today from hope to cursing

It feels a bit better to do so for me, maybe you can try.

Calling upon whatever supernatural forces (even if it's only the collective anger and frustration of the lesser thans) to destroy the rich in whatever fashion.

I hope that the evil wealthy will have nightmares every single night, and live in abject fear every single day, until they get their evil asses right with this country.

A pox on them all, and I mean it. I know we're supposed to exude love to make everything better, but today i am so angry at all of it I just want to send back to the elites tenfold the fear, pain and sorrow they have inflicted on the rest of us merely so they can have MORE MORE MORE.

How much do these goddamn motherfuckers NEED? How much is enough?

There is no bottom to their unquenchable desire to have gold-plated toilets and ten mansions and every goddamn congressperson in their back pockets.

And there is no goddamned bottom to my anger right now.

I'd say Peace, peace frog, but there is no peace, not as long as the rich motherfuckers in congress continue to eat away at whatever small crumbs the "lesser thans" have. They disgust me and I just hope they somehow feel that immense disgust.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuvuj]

170. Currently round 2/3s of new SS recipients take an early retirement ...

...at 62 and also see reduced payments of around 25% of what they would have received per month. So while "they" keep trying to raise the retirement age...looks like people actually are willing to take a pay cut in order to retire earlier?

So either they can't find jobs or are older and more tired than the "commission" is willing to admit.

Probably wouldn't have anything to do with working more for less pay and eating poorly due to "factory food"?

Looks like the predatory capitalists are going to get you no matter how you play the game....unless you join the "ownership society" and become one of them? Then you might lose a lot of it in the rigged stock market game?

"They" continually nickel and dime you...or even take large chunks when they can get away with it?

Now the US govt wants to DEFAULT on the bonds it "owes" the SS fund?

[MineralMan]

194. I took SS at agae 62. I did the math.

If I live to about age 77, the lower payments will finally catch up with me. I was having plenty of trouble making enough money at 62, so that roughly $1000/mo. came in pretty handy. So, I'm semi-retired. My maximum earnings from other work are limited if I don't want SS to reduce my monthly payments, so I don't work full time. At age 66, those limits disappear, so I'll probably ramp up my workload a little.

Everyone needs to do the calculations before deciding on early SS.

[MissDeeds]

171. K&R

The priorities of this government are very telling. One need only to look at where the money goes. There is plenty for the bogus wars and Wall Street bail outs, but education and social security get cut; not the kind of values that are traditionally "Dem". It's disgusting.

[SammyWinstonJack]

173. Rotten greedy a$$hole$!

Thanks Obama! You rawk! :sarcasm: :puke:

[sinkingfeeling]

179. Hate to tell you, but no body gets full retirement SS benefits at age 65 unless you were born prior

to 1937. If you were born in 1960 or later, it's already 67.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

[wuvuj]

181. Extended unemployment payments and SS payments and the like...

...have a 5 or 6Xs more positive effect on GDP going forward than tax cuts.

Not sure about spending cuts and military spending....might be a similar ratio as tax cuts?

It's just LOTS MORE FUN for the elites to spend money on wars and tax breaks for themselves than it is to actually improve the economy and give anything...even what was previously paid for...to the serf class?

And deregulation and "fair trade" allows them more chances to pick the avg pocket?

Since they control the media...they can eventually get enough of the serfs to agree to shoot themselves in the foot..."go ahead...it won't hurt too much and it's the right thing to do...now don't you feel better after doing something for your country"? "After all...we are all in this together".

[1776Forever]

182. To all those 50 something Tea Baggers - How's that working out for you - huh? You know the cuts to

your future benefits you have thought was so safe? Some don't care because they aren't the middle class but for those that are - screw you is the Repub's and some Dem's motto right now! It is time the sheep wake up!

[sofa king]

184. What? You mean it was an elaborate shell game the whole time?

My entire adult life I have assumed that I would always be cleaning up after, and taking care of, the greedy and self-absorbed generation that spawned me.

And I have never gone wrong by assuming that.

[MineralMan]

185. So, what's the number of the bill that has been introduced?

What? No bill? Lots of people float lots of ideas that never even get introduced.

Please repost when there's something more than chatter.

[Javaman]

187. Meh, I have long known that I would die at my desk. nt

[rhett o rick]

299. With the greatest respect, dying at your desk isnt the worst thing that could happen.

I was blessed to work at a desk. If I had to work until I died, I probably could have. The reason I got to work at a desk is because my father worked as a mechanic and helped me thru college. But he didnt get to work at a desk. And had to hang on health wise until age 62 so he could have a bypass. He worked hard and his body paid for it. He had to survive on the little he saved plus SS. We must tell our Pres to fight to preserve SS. Fuck Alan Simpson the damn republican.

[waronbanks]

188. Ahh yes another kick in the testicles from democrats.

Thank you sir may I have another?

Just gotta love dem corporate whores.

[Bragi]

195. I predict zero resistance

The thing about Americans is that they have become the most docile people on earth. You can export their jobs, foreclose on their houses and steal their savings, and no-one will do anything about it. In fact, most of the victims blame themselves for their plight.

So why should it be any different when the government renegs on paying the pensions that people have paid for all their working lives?

[inna]

216. You know, I've been thinking (and reading) about that "docility" phenomenon as well.

There are lots of different factors that explain that, actually. It's sort of fascinating; the matrix of control (for the lack of better terms) is unparallelled anywhere else in the world.

[marketbreakaway]

197. This Boomer Plans To Work Till He Dies

I was born in 1955 - that puts me square in the middle of the Boomer generation. There are 55 million of us.

Our social security payments were mostly paid out to our parents generation. Some of the surplus bought US bonds. But there is no where near enough saved to pay the promised benefits. In fact, SS went negative this year, which is 5 years earlier than expected.

When an investment account pays out investors from the deposits of new investors it is illegal and called a Ponzi Scheme. But that is exactly what SS does. I know that some democrats do not like to put negative labels on SS, but this democrat will not stick his head in the sand and refuse to see SS for what it is.

Business Week magazine says that SS is not a Ponzi scheme because the economy keeps crowning and thus the economic burden of paying out the promised benefits becomes a lighter burden on the whole economy. You and I both know that this is non-sense. The next 100 years is not going to see another 20 fold expansion of the global economy.

I have a serious idea to save the baby boomer's SS. Let's have a HUGE immigration reform. Open the doors right away to anyone from anywhere who can show that that he can legally support him/her self. I want to see millions and millions of young Chinese and Indian and Hispanic immigrants come in to the USA and buy houses and start businesses and pay taxes.

Time is growing very, very short for SS. We need to do something now.

But whatever the politico's do, I have my own plan. I plan to work till I die. What is your plan?

[texastoast]

199. Fight to raise the cap to $200,000

It makes sense. It is the most beneficial way to fix it and so fucking stupidly simple that Washington hates it.

No new accounting. No new systems in place. Highly efficient use of taxpayer money to fix the problem.

And fair.

Even God Ronnie Raygun raised the cap (in addition to bailing out the S&Ls, but the freepers tend to not mention any of this too much).

[LiberalEsto]

200. Oh, swell

58, unemployed, no pension, no savings, no chance of finding a job any time soon, no money for career retraining, bad feet and back, just one husband away from poverty, and now they fucking want to cut Social Security on me.
What the fuck do they want me and people like me to do? Go step on an ice floe?

[glitch]

205. No ice floes.

Those that make peaceful change impossible... well you get the drift.

[Recursion]

201. Of course it is. Those of us under 40 have always known that. Let me show you a graph of the problem

We did a straw poll in college and none of us expected to see a dime of it.

Here's the problem:



That is why social security is having trouble. It's paid for by levies on wages, and wages haven't kept pace with the economy.

If we change that graph, the problem goes away. If we don't change it, nothing we can do will save SS.

[Warren Stupidity]

208. 30 years of Regonomics!

"Please sir, I want some more"
-- Oliver Twist

[Warren Stupidity]

206. Please wait for the secret commission to have its recommendations

approved before voicing any outrage over their bullshit.



:sarcasm:

[Cleita]

210. Previous generations have had to go head to head

with the Social Security hating Republicans in the past. Remember the Gray Panthers? So this isn't new. Each generation who is coming up to be eligible for Social Security has to fight for it. Start badgering your Reps, Senators and the President now and relentlessly until they back off of this position or they will do it if they can get away with it. Specifically, you can't send enough mail, phone calls and other types of messages to Alan Simpson, just so he knows what a powder keg he's sitting on when he insists on messing with the American people's Social Security.

[cap]

211. so wtf do they want us to do?

lay down and be a truckstop until SS kicks in?

No one wants to hire folks over 50. It is the bulk of the population now that is being affected. Not the long tail but the big hump in the middle.

People, at what point do we hit the streets and demand EEOC for age discrimination, a pension and proper Social Security? Or do we make like Eskimos and skulk away to the ice floes?

Do our kids really want to support us when we are old?

[Hoyt]

215. 61 here and counting on Social Security for part of retirement, BUT . . . . .

We have some serious fiscal problems in this country. I think everything should be on the table while we have time to study it rationally (and before the Rethugs regain office).

Personally, I think the solution to Social Security is to remove the cap on wages, and perhaps even tax some non-wage sources. The SS tax rate might need to be adjusted, perhaps even have a lower rate for non-wage sources of income.

But, I'm not for just saddling our young folks with the costs without considering what can be done.

And, yes, I'm pissed it got to this point. But pissing and moaning ain't gonna solve a thing.

[femrap]

218. Just the title of the

article, 'Can these MEN fix the deficit?' Men only? Shit. We're really screwed now. Women will be dying in the streets. I don't think da boyz will pay to see old women pole dancing....well, maybe. They could ridicule and laugh at us. Maybe give us a few dollars to buy some bread and peanut butter.

I'm so sick of what is going on in this nation. And under Dem rule.

Let the Mayans be right and let this f*cking world end so we can begin anew with Cooperation and Sharing as the norm.

Let Mother Nature kick are asses so hard we finally give her the respect and love she deserves.

[Duhgee]

219. I'm just a troll but....

We really need to think about this problem differently. $70,000 of expected payments will be unreceived. It is an important point. Deductions from you and your fellow workers are immediately swapped for securities, the cash goes in the U.S. general fund. Payments are made by selling the securities to the U.S. Treasury. Social Security has about 2.4 trillion in these securities at the moment. That's where your "money" is, it is gone. Congress pulled all your Social Security from your pocket as soon as you earned it. OK, well that's the past, what now. Current workers payments to Social Security = X If payments from Social Security > X then debt accumulates. The math is simple. I suggest we live within our means. Here's a good link http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n1

[Warren Stupidity]

228. "Social Security has about 2.4 trillion in these securities at the moment"

"That's where your "money" is, it is gone."

See the US Constitution. Our money is gone only if our government fails to meet its financial obligations. Our government is restricted by the constitution from doing that.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
-- the 14th amendment.

[Duhgee]

236. You are right, I worded that weakly. I should have said cash...

thanks.

[Warren Stupidity]

243. Point being what?

The government should have a warehouse as in Tomb Raiders where they pile up the cash? Where exactly should SS revenue be if not in treasury bonds?

The 'problem' is that they are angling to avoid as much of that repayment as possible by cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, increasing payroll taxes, etc. so that they can continue to fund the other programs, where other programs is in reality our insane military budget, using SS REVENUE. All of this rather than txing the rich and the corporations.

Heck with that bullshit.

[Duhgee]

254. Point is we can't make payments with securities...

it has to be with cash. In 2009 cash into Social Security was was 1.049 trillion. Cash out was 950 billion. It is predicted that soon cash out will be greater than cash in. From where will the cash come? Is this not a problem worth addressing?

[Warren Stupidity]

257. When the cash out is to bond holders and war barrons

it just doesn't seem to be a problem. Looks like the military has to take a cut and the rich have to pay more taxes, or we continue to issue more t-bills to cover our obligations - which is what we will do.

[Duhgee]

260. I guess so

[Xithras]

261. $2.4 trillion really isn't that much money in terms of SS's future.

Just to keep a little perspective, there are an estimated 79 million Boomers in the U.S. Apportioned evenly, that $2.4 trillion dollars works out to $30,380 per Boomer. According to the SSA, the current average payout for a SS retiree is $1067 per month, or $12,804 per year. The debt works out to two years and three months of payouts per Boomer retiree.

I don't think you're doing it, but I've noticed various people over the years who seem to be under the impression that SS could be funded "forever" if the debt were just "paid back". While there ARE solutions to save Social Security, paying back the debt is just a small part of it.

[rhett o rick]

234. Right wing lies. The money isnt "gone" it's invested in Treasury Bonds. GWBush claimed they

securities were merely paper. But that's was most of his inheritance was in according to Hartmann.

If the greedy wealthy paid their fair share, there would be no crisis. But the greedy wealthy run the country. Alan Simpson carries water for the greedy rich, definitely not for "we the people".

[Duhgee]

238. again I apologize...

Certainly the securities are not worthless, but they are not cash.

[rhett o rick]

255. They are as solid as cash. nm

[Duhgee]

259. ok, you win

[rhett o rick]

267. And they pay interest. nm

[ladywnch]

223. based on my SS statement, I haven't been eligible for retirement at 65

for YEARS. My statement claims that my eligibility age is either 67 or 68 ( I can't remember which). for the record I'm currently 52.

Of course all this is little more than an academic exercise since anyone my age has about as much chance of getting a better-than-minimum-wage job as my being abducted by terrorists!

[Statistical]

229. 67 for everyone born after 1960. Although you can get "early SS" at any age after 62. n/t

Based on your birth year (1958?) it should be 66 and 8 months though. Maybe SS has wrong birth date?

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

[ladywnch]

233. Or they just rounded up. and I do remember the 'early ss' option

but you do take a hit on the monthly payout unless you're disabled at that point, then you get the full amount. So real just talking about 3 more years of work.......granted not a great outcome but certainly not horrible......the bigger problem is going to be finding/getting/keeping employment till then. THAT is the bigger problem and damn near impossible to address since rethugs will protect corporations from having to hire/keep employees over 60.

PS. thanks for the link

[Statistical]

237. They shouldn't round up.

Your DOB determines your retirement age down to the month (per link). As far as early retirement yes you take a hit and once you opt for that you get the lower amount forever.

You don't need to take it at 62. You could take it at any age >62. (i.e 63, 65, 66.5, etc). The date you take it determines how much of a "hit" you take. 62 is the minimum unless your are disabled (which technically is another program despite having name Social Security).

Assuming you were born in 1958 you can get the exact amount of the hit here (down to the month). If another year use that year's page.
http://www.ssa.gov/retirement/1958.html

For example:
If you took SS starting at 62 you would get 71.7% of the full retirement amount.
If you took SS starting at 65 you would get 88.9% of the full retirement amount.
If you took SS starting at 66 and 6 months you would get 98.3% of the full retirement amount.

[Statistical]

230. Dupe

[Radical Activist]

232. There's a war on the young right now.

We'll spend a lifetime paying for social security we're unlikely to get.
We're being stuck with the impacts of climate change because the Senate won't take action.
We're being forced to fork over money for health insurance we don't want or need to stabilize the system for others.
We're paying high, regressive taxes to Medicare and Social Security.
We're paying outrageous student loans the size of mortgage while older people with mortgages get a bailout.

The young are getting fucked and we need to stop letting people over 50 set the agenda.

[bettyellen]

269. ugh, the propaganda worked on you- because you're so short sighted.

[Radical Activist]

270. There's really no propoganda being put out

that represents the viewpoint of anyone younger than the boomer generation. At least not in the corporate press.

[Hannah Bell]

287. your elders are paying precisely the same taxes, and have been doing so longer than you.

you really bought into the generational warfare they're pushing to get what they want, didn't you, rad?

[Radical Activist]

288. Not proportionally.

Young workers with lower incomes by a much higher proportion of their earnings in social security and medicare than higher income earners. But we've had this discussion before and you have a real blind eye to how regressive and unfair the social security tax is.

I don't know who "they" is but I can see who's getting screwed. I can see that we're passing health care for the boomers as they reach the age when they'll have more health problems while the young take on a lifetime of debt in student loans. I can see people who think we can wait to do something about climate change because they'll be dead by the time it gets really bad. And I can see that the establishment liberal groups don't want to talk about issues in that way because they aren't run by young people.

[bettyellen]

294. ha ha, but what you can't see is that you're going to get old and sick and you don;t want to think

health care is for boomers? LOL. there's lots of propaganda, kid, you just dont recognise it as such. and you've bought into it, and it serves to divide the party.
you should be railing against conservatives- young ones too, but nooooo, it;s all the geezers fault- because they aren;t a diverse group- i guess. even older liberals are bad, ha ha ha. what a pantload you swallowed.

[Radical Activist]

301. Who are you responding to?

Because what you wrote doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I wrote.
Telling young people they should be thinking about retirement is a pretty clueless thing to say when they'll be paying off student loans until they're 50.

[bettyellen]

325. it;s funny you want to blame older folk for being self centered when you can;t see past your own

debt. it really is all about you, ha ha. i could say that;s typical of the younger generation, but i'm wiser than that, i know you're a diverse lot.
boomers have lived through a lot of lean years, paid their dues and thensome- more than any generation in the past mind you, and many will get screwed out of the ss benefits they paid long for, because young people just want to think of their imediate needs, and they need a scapegoat. and they have given up before they started all because they thought every other generation had it easier.
it's bullshit, they need to get over it.you all are being played.

[Radical Activist]

333. Boomers have spent 40 years fighting for their own self itnerests.

I don't expect any more or less from Gen X and Y, who haven't been as diligent about looking out for their generational interests.

Actually, boomers came of age and lived during the most prosperous period in American history. No generation has been more privileged or had it easier. Your belief that they paid their dues more than any other generation is hilarious.

[bettyellen]

334. we paid more into social security, and have gone through three big recessions now

and i guess where handling it all a bit better than you. if you call the strugle for civil rights, women;s rights and ending the wars "generational interests" you're kidding no one. you're not even believieng your own BS at this point im sure.
laugh at you, yes. talk to, no.
if you believe that nonsense you post, you've been played, bigtime kid.

[Warren Stupidity]

322. We were all younger lower income workers too.

Many of us are still lower income workers, although none of us indeed are 'younger', so I'll concede that one point, we are no longer younger. We did however contribute more, proportionally, than any generation before us, due to the nice 'reforms' of 77 and especially 83 that jacked up payments way beyond what was needed to keep the system solvent, creating the SS Cash Cow that Congress is desperately trying to protect by swindling people into believing that benefits should be reduced in order to avoid the painful necessity of actually paying us our stipends out of the trust fund t-bills set aside for that purpose.

"I can see that we're passing health care for the boomers " then you are hallucinating. My generation is making the transition to medicare and will not see much of the benefits of HCR (if there are any benefits, which is a separate issue.) This wasn't passed for us, although the political pressure to PASS SOMETHING came largely from our generation. Perhaps you might want to invent another argument, as that last one was not very good at all.

[Hannah Bell]

324. there is no upper limit on medicare, so yes, proportionally. and ss is capped at $106.8K,

which covers about 98% of the workforce, so yes, proportionally.

In 1983, when reagan accelerated the fica tax, the youngest boomers were 22, just entering the workforce. they've been paying the increased rates their entire working life.

the oldest boomers were 37. so they will have paid 28 years, from age 37 to age 65.

your generation is not particularly wronged in this matter.


"health care for the boomers" = the ability to charge three times more in premiums than for young people, per the reform just passed.

again, you are not uniquely wronged.

the only issue unique to the young is student loans -- but this has been the case since the late 80s, at least. i thought it was nuts when student loans started becoming an increasingly big part of financing a college education, but the young people i spoke with seemed to take it as "normal".

if you have a problem with student loans, why is this my fault?

college costs have gone up disproportionally, no doubt about it. but i fail to see why this is the fault of "the boomers" as a generation or our particular responsibility to fix. student loans started to become important in financing college in the late 80s -- but in those 30 years i've never heard of any significant protest/movement around that fact by those affected.

fwiw: i put myself through grad school twice, once circa 1988 & once circa 2000. i didn't borrow money; i saved before i started & worked half-time all the way through. not ideal, but not impossible.


and it's always good to hear this kind of thing from young people, if only to remember how my generation also slanged & wronged our elders, blaming them for eveything that was wrong with the world & imagining we were invincible, righteous & smarter than them.

because we were young, & imagined our parents to be powerful people & the world to be a simple place susceptible to hollywood storylines.

[donco6]

312. Been there, done that, Chad.

For a lot longer than you.

[Radical Activist]

317. Who is Chad?

Is that supposed to be some kind of snide insult that only the cool "in" people know about?

[susanwy]

319. Ohhh, you poor baby!

Did you benefit one iota from your parents? Or maybe you'd just rather let anyone over 50 rot? And before you go off the deep end on me, read the last paragraph.

SS can be saved, but if you would rather just invest your own money the stock market (casino), go for it, please. There are plenty who are paying that price now that will at least have something with SS.

Agreed on climate change - sorry we screwed the pooch on that one!

If you don't understand that to provide health care to all, everyone has to play, then the public education we (those of us in the baby boom generation) paid for you was worthless. Who pays for you when you wreck your car, fall of a rock, crash your bike, run into a tree skiing? I could go on and on. Part of the problem is young people believe nothing will ever happen to them and who pays when it does? The rest of us. (That is not to say I think the "health care reform" was done correctly - single payer is the only way to go). And what about all the young people sacrificing their bodies in these stupid wars? How do you propose we take care of them without taxing you?

If you don't like taxes, become a tea bagger - you'll fit right in (sorry don't mean to insult here, but really read what you posted, I've seen that on right wing boards too). Do you drive on public roads? Live on the power grid? Take student loans? Use public transportation? Enjoy public parks? National Parks? How do you think that is paid for....and if you think your paying "outrageous" taxes, you make too much money and can save for you own retirement. That we we can just means test you right out of the system some day (I wish). Or is it, god forbid, that even though you made out pretty good, screw your neighbor? Or better yet, become an ex-pat, move to another country that has low taxes...oh wait, there are not many that have lower taxes than us (because they take care of their citizens health care). Otherwise, grow up and pay your taxes like a big boy and stop complaining....you too will realize death and taxes are the only sure things in this life.

Student loans are not outrageous because they are loans...they are due to bloated administrations at colleges that think the next BCS game is more important than your education. Don't like it, protest, get out there in the streets like we did when we were young...oh never mind your too busy on the "internets".

And what makes you think older people are the only ones getting mortgage bailouts? In fact most people ARE NOT GETTING BAILED OUT THEY ARE GETTING THROWN OUT....see comment on your education that I paid for, i.e worthless. Try getting a job after 50 (especially if you are a woman or a minority). Trust me, they will hire a 20 something with no real experience, pay them less and leave hang us out to dry. But, 'ya know, experience is overrated.

OR - realize that we are all on the same side here - respectful and dignified treatment when we are old - not thrown out with the trash (after all, you too, by the grace of God, will be old someday too, and trust me it is sooner than you think). Yes - we are asking you to pay for us and someday your children will pay for you. It can be done, if we quite tossing money down the drain in worthless wars. Realize the people that are screwing you that are over 50 are rich, white corporatist pigs - not the majority. All of us, young and old, should be out protesting in the streets.

Peace

[rhett o rick]

235. Why did Pres Obama pick Alan Simpson? Arent all the commitee members repukes? nm

[jtuck004]

239. We are not the "lesser people", and A. Simpson needs to eat those words. n.t.

[rhett o rick]

252. I dont see the big name Pres Obama fans here to answer why the Pres stacked the commission

against the working people.

[Mimosa]

273. Rhett, not a 1 of the posse pops up when this question is raised.

Ever. Their silence is deafening. ;)

[rhett o rick]

293. So the question is, do they not care about SS or what? nm

[totodeinhere]

276. They need to pull their heads out of Obama's ass first. n/t

[rhett o rick]

292. bingo

[DFW]

256. 58, and I'm not counting on anything.

There could well be another Republican administration in office before I hit 65, and if the last one is any indication,
whatever was there set aside for me will be either worthless or gone altogether (or "deferred" until I hit 104). I figure
anything I get will be an unexpected bonus. I think I'll dole most of it out in excessive cash tips to waiters and waitresses
who are nice to us despite working for slave wages and being crapped on by most everyone else. The rest will go to street
musicians who we like. IF I get anything. I figure my wife has a better chance of getting her German Social Security, but
that will be chump change, probably less than $1000 a month.

[Warren Stupidity]

258. Anyone who is 'not counting on anything' has bought the bullshit.

It is our political will to not allow them to fuck with SS that keeps our old age pension benefits intact. They want you to believe that it is all 'smoke and mirrors' rather than T-bills backed by the full faith and credit of our government. That way when they sell you reduced benefits rather than increased taxes on the rich - you will be a willin participant in your own swindling.

Be a Mark, or be Angry. This is a con game indeed, but the con isn't social security, the con is taking away the pension you paid for.

[DFW]

265. So T-Bills are a guarantee against reduced benefits?

If China dumps theirs, or even ten per cent of them, then what are they worth? What, in case of a new Republican
Government, would be the "full faith and credit of our government?" I believe any Democratic administration will
bend over backward to keep that intact. I believe a McCain (or worse) administration couldn't care less, as their
backers will have salted nest eggs away where our government can't get at them. It's no accident that Cheney's
Halliburton moved their HQ to Dubai.

So call me one who has bought the bullshit if you wish, but I'm putting some insurance away just in case. Trust
a Limbaugh administration, or even a Romney administration to make you whole if you wish. I have the luxury of
not depending on it, and I intend, for the sake of my wife and children (German citizens, all, btw), to not be
caught in a situation where I (and they) go down the tubes if our government finds it necessary to cut back when
it's time. If they come through, well, so much the better. When I'm back in the States, there will be some smiling
waiters, waitresses and street musicians.

[Warren Stupidity]

268. Trust fund T-bills are worth exactly what they are worth to all other t-bill holders.

Why would China dump it's T-bills? That makes no sense to the Chinese, who would lose the value of their holdings. This 'yellow peril' scenario is again used by the shitheads in Washington as an emotion-laded racist scare argument.

If our government's bonds are worthless you are going to be having far bigger problems than 'my pension doesn't buy very much', and your private savings are likely to be more deflated than your SS stipend.

The point being that they are using this argument to scare you into agreeing to cut the benefits they cannot default on.

[Hannah Bell]

285. .

[Hannah Bell]

286. us debt = $13 trillion. chinese-held = $900 B (6%). 10% of that = $90B (.6%)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

conclusion: chinese-held debt is not a significant proportion of us debt.

the biggest creditors = americans:

e.g. $2.5 trillion borrowed from the social security trust fund.

Ownership of the Debt

The Treasury Bulletin, available online from the Financial Management Service categorizes ownership of U.S. Government securities by types of investors.

What is the Debt Held by the Public?

The Debt Held by the Public is all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.

What are Intragovernmental Holdings?

Intragovernmental Holdings are Government Account Series securities held by Government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds; and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts.


As for US foreign-held debt, it totals about $4 trillion. China's portion is about 22% of this total:

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

and not all of that is from the chinese government: some is from private parties inside china, not all of whom are necessarily chinese.

[Riverman]

263. Cut the Fucking Pentagon! God Damn Them! I am 58

Prosecute the Wall Street criminals, take their horded billions, combine with the massive saving of cutting the war costs, pay for the needs of 95% of the population!

[smiley_glad_hands]

266. Commission has no authority. Any dem that runs on cutting SS will lose. n/t

[defendandprotect]

283. Obama must have given this Commission some authority . . . ???

What about the Baucus Health Care Panel -- what authority did they have --

yet, they kept every more logical point of view and option "off the table" --

This is a right wing hit squad . . . appointed by Obama!!

[Raine]

311. Don't kid yourself the dems will spin this

in such a way that the people will feel it's inevitable and better that the party that "cares about them" do it rather than the heartless repugs. In the end it all amounts to the same thing ... we're all screwed. :-(

[abelenkpe]

277. BS!

They are not going to cut SS. If they do I will freak out. I better not be the only one protesting that shit either. If you're not willing to protest this FU.

[bvar22]

281. That will do absolutely NO GOOD after the fact.

Did you protest the "historic" Health Insurance Reform?
You got screwed there too.

To appreciate how fully you have been screwed, simply compare the "historic" Health Insurance Reform to what is available in the rest of the Civilized World.
This WAS a Once in a Generation Opportunity for REAL reform...down the toilet,
in order to "preserve the private delivery system".
THAT is the "Uniquely American Solution."

"In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18FE-70B2-A835FE1E7FA8D74C

[abelenkpe]

331. Fine.

Where and when are the protests happening now then?

[defendandprotect]

282. We all had best get busy ... and we're many years late on slime like Alan Simpson . ..!!

But, thanks to president Obama for appointing him as co-chair!!

More great work by Obama!!

:evilgrin:

and first time I've ever used this --

:puke:

[grahamhgreen]

290. All for a war for profit , outsourcing, and tax cuts for the uber-rich.

[cap]

291. also, anyone counting on their assets to replace Social Security better think again

everyone is going to be selling at the same time to fewer buyers...

Think about it. Your house, stocks or bonds will be sold by the large contingent of baby boomers to the smaller contingent of younger works.

Large supply of stuff to smaller supply of people, what does that mean? Your stuff is worth less.

Jeremy Siegel, author of Stocks for the Long Haul, sees this problem of asset deflation.

You think you can count on your house as your piggy bank. Not so.

BTW, how much do you think you are going to need? 20K per year for 30 years is 600K right there. We are living a lot longer. There are a lot of people in retirement communities who are seeing 90 years old. The average person has less than 50K in a retirement savings.

Oh, you're the hardworking type? You're going to die in your boots. So how are you going to handle the illnesses of old age? Everyone has major hospitalizations. Employers don't take kindly to employees being gone for weeks at a time.

Mothers prepare to burden your children or be bag ladies in the street. So what's it going to be kids, are you going to abandon Mommy?

[Name removed]

295. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnaries]

313. What a difference from "cat food commission" and "privatization"!

I would just like to point out that originally these alarmist posts were swearing up and down that the whole purpose of the "cat food commission" was to PRIVATIZE and to "kill" or "gut" Social Security.

NOW, the alarmism has ahifted. Because the original alarmist claims were unfounded.

I am not saying "don't be alarmed". On the contrary, I am saying we SHOULD be alarmed. Just be sure you direct your alarm where it needs to be directed and don't be distracted by non-issues.

Stay FOCUSED, people! Don't chase distractions.

[MissMarple]

321. Really? When Social Security was first proposed... what was the life expectancy of Americans?

NOT what it is today. Get a grip. It has been greatly and broadly expanded. This is not a bad thing, necessarily. But to make this work we have to raise taxes on the fabulously wealthy. Doesn't it suck to be them? I'm going with "NO". They can bear it. Hillary's message must pull through. Brazil has the highest tax rate in the Americas. Brazil is also fabulously productive and growing just like we were in the '50's and '60's. Well, imagine that with a 93% upper tax bracket. Progressive policies benefit everyone....across the board. And don't get me started on Sweden. So back off the greed and quit ruining our democracy you dimwitted selfish under educated .....twits. End of rant.

Who brought in that soap box? :evilgrin:

I wasn't ranting at you guys....honest....unless you hate taxes because they are inherently evil. And that is just too stupid for words.

[hamsterjill]

332. 51 here

And damn sick of getting shit on after working all of my life!

[Pizzaboy]

335. I'm 32. No good

Does Obama agree with the move or is it only a proposal?