Skip to comments.GOP Senators May Make 69 Retirement Age (eligibility for Social Security)
Posted on 06/14/2005 4:50:36 PM PDT by QQQQQEdited on 06/15/2005 12:14:44 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Key Senate Republicans are considering gradually raising the Social Security retirement age as high as 69 over several years as they struggle to jump-start legislation that President Bush has placed atop his second-term agenda, officials said Tuesday.
Raising the retirement age is unpopular, according to some surveys.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Raising the retirement age is just more of their pyramid scheme -- there were some threads about how when it was originally introduced, the life expectancy was much lower, so they didn't have to pay out much and not for very long, but they were taking in plenty. They want to go back to the same model -- push the age to 100, why don't they, to make sure that 99% of the people will be dead, before qualifying -- that's where they are going with it. SS is by any other name is just another tax, unless they will allow people to have personal accounts, which was proven to be a great success in Chile.
What difference does it make? I'm resigned to having to work the rest of my life anyway.
But woudn't you rather pay yourself, rather then pay that same amount to the government as taxes, whatever that amount is.
When they stop giving illegals free hospitalization and every other benefit in the book, when they stop shipping billions of bucks overseas to buy the friendship of other countries, then they can raise the SS age to save money.
They should make it a 50% pension until 68.
People want to get A check, and start receiving support, even if it isn't 100%.
No check until 69 is a good way to put Democrats back in power.
Congress critters should also raise their age to 69 for their government pensions...or more, for messing social security up so bad...
"When they stop giving illegals free hospitalization and every other benefit in the book, when they stop shipping billions of bucks overseas to buy the friendship of other countries, then they can raise the SS age to save money."
Couldn't agree more... ZERO government benefits for illegals before ANY cut to Social Security.
I just want my money back. Now
Names...I want names!
And, I want proof that the increase in age for full benefits also applies to the Senate's retirement plan!
Enough is enough.
Oh, come on, you don't buy this bilge do you?
This is more of that "Republicans face chasm of ideology,
Democrats remain united in solidarity with middle class"
When they add the illegals to the role as they are talking about, the age will jump to at least 72, most likely 76 within 10 years.
Good Lord don't encourage them! They're already staying in office into their 70s, 80s and 90s, treating their seats as if they were lifetime appointments.
Cogress critters should have a mandatory retirement of age 65.
Got a link for this story?
Reminds of that movie The Jerk. All I need is this gov't service and that gov't service....and this social security, and that medicare and that medicaid and that welfare and those perscription drugs, and those education dollars, and that money for art, and that money for endangered species, and this money for AIDS and that money for..........on and on endlessly. Other than that, they want freedom. Oh, of course THEY don't want to pay for any of it, but they want the RICH to pay.
They could save social security and raise the age to 79. Most will die before they can collect a dime...Problem solved.
Actually, there are not many Senators who get elected on Social Security privatization platforms.
You can get away with in a select few House districts, you can't really do it on a statewide ballot, because it is the third rail, and well, old people vote in droves.
Boy, you nailed it, FDR was a bigger disaster than Jimmy Carter. Too bad the idiot got elected 4 times.
Sorry...but the only benefit to be granted to illegals is a speedy deportation.
But, but, that's not compassionate, after all we Americans are ALL so rich.
SS can't be in too much trouble, what with the totalization agreement with fox and all the little foxes.
" push the age to 100, why don't they, to make sure that 99% of the people will be dead, before qualifying"
That's what FDR intended when he instituted SS, the medical profession should have to fund any shortage for creating the problem!
Yup! Just like I said on another thread a while ago! They havent the grits to do whats right and privatise it so they will do what will have to be done to save the thing.
On that thread I said. They will have to raise the age to 70. Then they will have to cut benefits by half, raise the taxes by at least triple and cut spending by at least half.
Now we all know they are NOT gonna cut spending. So in order to "save" the system and pay off the IOUs coming due in a few years, they will raise ALL taxes (fed income as well as FICA) by at least triple to pay those IOUs and "save" the system. Then make us all work till 69-70-and soon 75 and 80 to help collect gelt they have stolen from the system.
They dont give a rip about us what in the hell are we kidding ourselves for?! They are addicted, and addicted to money. Fine thing, anyone under the age of 55 will have all that money stolen from them and never see one dam red cent.
I resigned myself to the fact that i will never retire - just change what job I do - a long time ago. Republican's attempt to raise the retirement age is not a problem for me. What I object to is their attempt to delay the inevitable by this attempt. Again, I am disappointed in Republicans for not suppoerting President Bush's plan for SS and pushing for privatization accounts.
Keep them working and make sure they die before we have to return any of their money to them. Heck of a scheme.
Even FDR meant for it to be temporary and warned of dependance on goverment
Welcome to FreeRepublic. If the senate Republicans think that they are immune from acting on social security because they didn't mention it in their speeches they are wrong and they are playing games. The president, at the GOP convention, made it clear that Social Security reform was one of the top issues on his platform. As the leader of the majority Republican Senate and majority Republican House, I expect him and them to deliver. Otherwise, they can count on one less vote.
To suggest that Social Security reform - to include private accounts - isn't a Republican issue is to play a political game that I'm not interested in.
Geez, I'd like it whenever they give it to me. It's more than I expected.
I still figure they'll find a way to make sure that I don't get back a fraction of what I've paid in.
Names...I want names!
Probably McLame and his usual cronies.
When discussing FDR, you need to put everything in the perspective of the 1930's.
When we had 25% unemployment, we had Communists actually being taken seriously (for maybe the only time ever), a rising political star in the Conservative Southland was a man who was advocating nationally mandated salary limits
We could have done alot worse than FDR, and the fact is, we were lucky that any vestige of capitalism remained post-depression
FDR's programs were bad, they did increase the size of government, but, they may have very well saved the American system from what could have been a much worse situation.
Most people don't actually take anything said at the conventions seriously, we should all know this by now. It's nothing more than scripted pageantry.
Like it or not, SS privatization is a LOSING ISSUE, and given that the future of this country (judicial appointments) will be settled within the next 10 years, we do not need to give the Democrats any ammunition
It is much better for the country for us to wait on this and get our judges passed, then for us to push it so that the Democrats can beat us by scaring the elderly and get their judges passed.
Of course, if you are able to save and invest enough on your own, you can retire before the official SS retirement age if you have enough income from your investment. There's no rule that you can't retire before the "official" retirement age. You just can't start drawing that government check until then.
Oh well, lets just replace Social Security with a cyanide tablet. ...pssssst. this waffling is going to lead to a major Democratic Win.
what about the rest of us who are on our feet constantly and work extremely hard physically, emotionally and mentally ......
It will be disability for me, that's for sure.....
Big incentive to get old.
"Sorry...but the only benefit to be granted to illegals is a speedy deportation."
How about free health care in our emergency rooms, free public education, and welfare benefits in many states?
i think when the dems controlled congress they did raise the retirement age in a tiered fashion.
i think i am suppose to work until 67 as is?
anyone remember or know?
they will lose every voter under age 55 who doesn't have a fat govt pension that stands to lose everything by these stupid actions...
why don't they just take SS from all income levels and let that be that....
....no, they would rather punish the working classes.....
they won't get my vote...I'll vote my pocketbook on this issue because the govt leaves me no choice.....
Who cares about that crap? Social Security's problems are 100 fold.
I just want it to stop and let me keep my dang money. I don't want any of their stinkin' benefits that are just "promised" by lying politicians of any party. And I've always known they were going to renege on my age group (mid 40's) anyway.
It's a failed socialist program and I'm tired of being forced in a supposed "free country" to pay into a lie with money I could stick in jars and bury in the back yard and be better off at 70 than with any social insecurity used to line the pockets of pork addicted jerks.
But let's go ahead and add your pet peeves in the mix anyway and tell these jerks to STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY. But we can't seem to get enough idiots off their butts to vote them out of office. They seem to be too busy screaming at Michael Jackson or watching American Idol.
And the AMOUNT does NOT go up when you reach the next age level but stays constant throughout your life except for a 5% raise across the board every 3 years.
Hell would freeze over first!!
but the way you pointed it out is funny as all get out.
Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades.
Do you know who said that?
AzaleaCity ... I think there's a list you should be on.
Yes. The social security reform act (of 1983, I think) raised the age of full retirement for those born in 1960 or later. If memory serves the age is now 67 for those born in 1967 or later and 66 for those born 1960-1966. It was a bi-partisan deal between the Reagan White House, the Democrat House (Tip O'Neill) and the Republican Senate (Bob Dole).
A partial examination of the facts is as dangerous as fabricating your facts. Consider, when the Social Security age was set; the average person was expected to die within a year or two of retirment. Medical science has come an unforseen growth, we can now cure a great many of the diseases that killed the elderly just 20 years ago.
Thus, we are not only living longer; our medical bills as we age have grown at a non-linear rate as well. Now, let's add to this mix of escalating medical costs, a larger percentage of the population reaching retirement age, and the expectation that most of us will reach the century mark.
Somethings gotta give. The population is in DECLINE (there are fewer workers, supporting each retiree). Does the gov't really have any choice?