Posted on 07/13/2010 9:26:14 PM PDT by Nachum
In a rare departure from this year's intense political posturing over the soaring budget deficit, House leaders of both parties recently signaled that they are prepared to tackle a leading long-term liability — Social Security — by raising the retirement age.
Politicians often talk in generalities about cutting the deficit, but discussing specifics about how Congress may curb the growth of the biggest and most popular programs such as Social Security and defense is controversial and usually taboo in an election year.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I don’t suppose they could put this off for like 5 year now could they? I want to take an early retirement before they change the benefits to respond to their earlier thefts of our retirement money.
Anyone under 60 right now should make sure they are going to be fit and able to work well past the traditional retirement age. Low birth rates and economic storms ahead insure that.
I suppose if you had the good sense to have a bunch of kids then that will help.
As for the aged with no children that cannot work in their 70? Oh, there will be a plan, don’t you worry about that.
Extending the retirement age beyond 65 only works if there are jobs for people aged 65 and older to do. Current administration economic policies have killed off job creation in this country. Many people are “retired” today in their 50’s and early 60’s because they can’t find jobs, not because they want to be retired.
“As for the aged with no children that cannot work in their 70? Oh, there will be a plan, don’t you worry about that.”
Are you thinking of Soylent Green?
Bet they are. Ever hear what George Bernard Shaw said about people who had to rely on others to survive?
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgpaKkrZex4
Nothing but IOU after IOU in the lock box. I don’t even think they try to convince citizens its in the “Lock Box”, the IOU is stuff in a file cabinet far to the corner.
Raising social security before an election....hmmm, me thinks it is to take people’s attention away from the immigration issue and control of the border.
WHOA!!! That’s an eye opener!!!
This is how Social Security Works.
1. They steal it from you and your employer and put it in a secure lock box, that congress has the key for.
2. The social security taken from you paycheck is part of your gross income so you pay tax on income you did not get,
3. They spend the money in the secure lock box.
4. They “give” back some of the money when you retire but again it is considered income and is taxed.
They steal it, tax it, spend it and tax it again when they “give” some of it back.
If a private firm did this it would be considered, theft, embezzlement, fraud and a ponzi scheme.
I’m amazed the dems didn’t raise the prospect of means testing. After all, it’s not “fair” if some people live within their means, prepare for their future by saving some of their earnings and then have the nerve to collect funds that had been forcibly confiscated from their paychecks by the government with the promise of getting it back someday. There are those “less fortunate” who need it more, right? “We’ve got to spread the wealth...”
/sarc (but could see the Obama administration making this argument because half of the country would buy it)
My investment adviser always shows me this breakdown of my projected financial situation in my "golden years" of which social security was included, I told him to remove it from the projections. He laughed and said he hears that a lot.
“They make the Las Vegas mafia look like kindergardeners.”
Now how would Senator Reid respond to that?
Both parties speak with forked tongue.
Talk about a firestorm trigger!
Let me get this straight a person will have social security taxes taken out of pay check 54 plus years (16 to age 70) only to told at age 70 he/she has too much money so all of the social security taxes collected have been diverted to someone more needer.
A couple of questions here:
1. Who says social security retirement will remain at 70?
2. Who says the “needy threshold” will not be adjusted on an annual basis?
If this concept is mutated into law this means the Federal Government can legally seize the entire Social Security trust funds at any time. Right now that action is boarder line illegal; but this will make it legal.
The real impact of this concept is to totally discourage any savings for old age. Why save anything if there is a chance that it will make you too rich to get your social security when you retire.
You ask how did we get here? Real simple, the Congress critters aren't in social security so why should they try to understand the impacts of a system they aren't part of?
Gee, it just DELAYS retirement age.
The truth is NO ONE WANTS OLD PEOPLE.
Add that to OBAMA care and more will DIE.
“”If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you’re retired, why are we paying you at a time when we’re broke?” he said. “We just need to be honest with people.”
What about the money you were forced to pay into it. Alos are they going to stop collecting it from our paycheclks then if we are not going to get it. I would love to opt out
of the Social Security and save the money myself
Where does your money go when you die at 60 and the government hopes you do pass away?THEY KEEP IT!
Where does your money go when you die at 60 and the government hopes you do pass away?THEY KEEP IT!
Hardly! If this is not done by both parties, we are doomed economically anyway! If the Republicans don’t embrace this solution, maybe we will elect a third party. Really, both parties have to get serious about the spending and the ultimate debt that we face!
The first step to correcting this crisis is to reduce the pensions of Federal and State workers! This also means that they have to contribute to their own Health costs - 50% or so seems reasonable... Then we can worry about Social Security and Medicare. Medicare recipients also need to contribute their share of expenses when able...
No, they spent it several years ago! Bye they way, retirement of government workers needs to be upped to either 65 or 70 years of age - no more of this 55 retirement crap!
By the way... getting way too quick on the keyboard... This subject is one of my pet peeves...
Prepare for the royal screw job. Another crisis is on the way. Die now while it is still free.
Prepare for the royal screw job. Another crisis is on the way. Die now while it is still free.
You are 100% correct. Also do not forget that jobs open for new workers when older workers retire. Boost the age and the jobless rate will never go below 10%.
Lest we forget, Pelosi during the Bush Administration blocked every effort he made to do something about Social Security. She said that there was plenty of money in the "Trust Fund"(ho ho ) to last for the forseeable future.
Its funny How the Government tells you that the program is going broke but not HOW. Could it be that the very Politicians telling you this are the Ones who have been robbing the money from Social Security replacing the funds with IOUs to fund all their PROGRAMS for 60 years. They should all be arrested and forfeit their fat pensions and be Tarred and Feathered
Sounds like a great idea, except where would they get the money from?
That's just a distraction.
Do you honestly believe that the seasoned congresscritter leaving office is going to depend on SS for their retirement income? They leave office, go on speaking tours, write books, and get hired by lobbying firms. The $2K/mo. they could get from SS is nothing to the well-connected retired congresscritter.
Ditto that!
The first of the baby boomer Government workers retired 10 years ago (65 now). Why do you think cities, states and the fed are exploding in losses right now? Private sector baby boomers are retiring this year (1945) 65-66yrs old.
That large Baby boomer population getting all the promised perks is unsustainable - the math don't hunt.
This is all about the elections in November....and any Pubbies stupid enough to get suckered into a “dialogue” about this will find it on tape in their districts in October. Classic, classic campaign tactic...
Wait until all the cards are on the table. Then both sides will try to savage the other during the fall campaign as being the one trying to 'destroy' Social Security.
Maybe the system should be redone so those people who had children - had future workers - can stay on Social Security at 65 - and those liberals who didn't can work til they drop.
Dear Gen X, Y and beyond - We, collectively, decimated your future - but we got ours. Ha, Ha.
-Baby Boomers
I've been taking to calling it my career sabbatical. I'm too old to get hired at what I used to do, too young to really retire, and recently realizing too feeble to keep up with what I am currently doing...
So, I am starting, my own business.
Gee thanks....
And welcome to FR, I think...
Anyone under 60 right now should make sure they are going to be fit and able to work well past the traditional retirement age.
I applaud this direction, as it’s time for one generation to stop stealing from the next. It’s “theft” because those benefiting know that those who are funding their retirement have no hope of receiving the same benefit as compensation).
1. Who says social security retirement will remain at 70?
How about they give up their yearly increases they get without voting for it?
$172,000 X 535 X 3% = $2,760,600/year plus earmarks
I could go on and on.
Let me give you a hypothetical life discussion on retirement (or maybe just life in the real world).
Eight years ago, He was a millionaire via stock prices and assets. Then things changed...
He had 17,000 shares of stock at 140.00 a share (normal for a qualified and important worker) - and as things tend to happen, they fell all the way to 2.00 a share. Well, you can imagine the disappointment - to say the least. Now, the big money makers took their share, but by the time he knew about the collapse, it was too late (Hey, only those with insider information can make the right decisions).
These shares were all in 401K plans and were to insure his future retirement. Well, things did not work out so well. He also had 401K’s in several other things which also did not pan out during the collapse.
Sooo... He went from a millionaire to a pauper overnight. Since he was 55 at the time, and newly laid off due to the collapse of the telecommunications industry, He was in real trouble. He had both experience and know how - but that did not seem to work when you are over 55. I’m guessing that the health care costs rise over that age...
Well, he had to retire early (so to speak) and cash in some of his 401K’s just to get by. Hiring practices for this industry did not improve (except for the imported labor from China and India). The end result is that he went from a bright future to a very dim one having to expend his savings just to get by. By the time he was 62, he had to apply for early Social Security benefits to survive. So, this well meaning individual - with planning, ended up barely getting by because of the markets.
Now of course if I had been working for the Government, I would still be in great shape - living high on the hog and taking money from the workers so that I could live the high life!
Of course, the age of Social Security should be raised! But, before you do that, raise the retirement age and amounts afforded to government workers! You can NOT continue to place the burden of retirement on the young - either Social Security or especially those that are allowed to retire at such a young age!
STOP the funds transfer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.