- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 4, 2012 at 6:02 pm #778622
hooper1961Memberdbp – trying to make a living
December 4, 2012 at 6:11 pm #778623
redblackParticipantskeeter: nah, man. i see that you’re a reasonable conservative-esque type of feller. thanks for engaging in rational debate.
i think that if the cap isn’t raised, the payroll tax holiday has to expire. otherwise, like jo said, we’re just accelerating the insolvency of the trust as more people retire, instead of finding ways to fill it to keep up with payouts.
but social security is going to do something interesting around the time that i retire.
it turns out that generation x is the smallest generation since the war babies – smaller than the baby boomers. but generation y (or whatever they’re called) is much larger. which means fewer payouts and more revenues.
December 4, 2012 at 6:48 pm #778624
DBPMemberOh, so you’re trying to make a living are you?
Well let me ask you . . . Do you think there is anyone on this forum who’s NOT trying to make a living? Seriously?
Based on what I know about you so far, which is damned little, I assume you’re doing absolutely nothing to better any part of the world outside your own little cubbyhole.
Now maybe I’m wrong about that. No. PROBABLY I’m wrong about that. But what else can I think, when all I have to go on is what I hear you talking about on this Blog? Which is a big fat downer for the most part.
“No charity care” indeed! What kind of person talks like that in a public forum? Do you have moral Tourettes or something?
Look, I don’t mind if you wanna come on here and say outrageous things once in a while. Everyone does that, including me. But I would like to see some more balance from you. I would like to know what good you are doing your fellow man on the personal level. Until then, your credibility with me is just about zero.
And until then I’m not gonna let you draw me into any discussions about how much “we” need to cut benefits for some third party either.
From now on, whenever I hear you use the word “sacrifice” I wanna know what kind of sacrifices YOU are making first. THEN you can come to me with your plea that we cut some other schmuck’s benefits.
And don’t tell me you’re paying taxes and that’s enough. You’re living in the golden age of low taxes and high public services, bub, in the most affluent society that has ever existed on the face of the planet!
All in all, I’d say you’ve got it pretty good.
December 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm #778625
miwsParticipantdbp – trying to make a living
“Why Ah say…..Ah say….pull yerself up by yer bootstraps, booooyyy! Just whinin’ and whinin’ and whinin’ on the internet all the time, about how life is so unfair fer ya ain’t gonna ‘complish nuthin’ but piss other people off, and make ’em think yer a small man!“
December 7, 2012 at 7:25 am #778626
HMC RichParticipantRedblack. Roosevelt and crew did not expect large payouts for retirees when Social Security was implemented. The retirement age was set at 65, but for males the life cycle generally ended at 60. Now the life expectancy is 83 for a man turning 65 today and 85 for a woman. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.htm
With that in mind, if we were to use FDR’s numbers then the elderly would start receiving benefits around 88.
Stop being selfish. The retirement age needs to go up a bit. Maybe not as much as what I posted.
I am all for early retirement ages, but for full benefits, (for a relatively healthy individual) raising the age will help.
And if the government can actually bring the debts under control, then they can lower the age limit again. I chuckle.
Anyway, Can I and $315 million people borrow about $52,000 or so from you. And for the unborn it will be even higher.
But the pols will make it worse for the middle class and coddle the robber barons of Wall Street.
December 7, 2012 at 7:35 am #778627
JanSParticipantyou do realize, Rich, that SS has nothing to do with the deficit…so why can’t other things be done with…contractors, lobbyists, defense..why aren’t we hearing about those things…that do have to do with the deficit…
December 7, 2012 at 7:39 am #778628
WorldCitizenParticipantAs far as life expectancy goes, weren’t the numbers back then skewed significantly by a much higher infant mortality rate?
December 7, 2012 at 5:53 pm #778629
JoBParticipantWorld citizen
thanks for bringing up that point…
as it happens.. individuals with the resources to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and avoid hard labor have pretty much always lived into their 80s.
infant mortality rates drive life expectancy statistics.
December 7, 2012 at 11:19 pm #778630
SmittyParticipant“infant mortality rates drive life expectancy statistics.”
Have to disagree.
I think the reduced number of deaths caused by wars and hard labor play a bigger role.
December 8, 2012 at 1:48 am #778631
Genesee HillParticipantOh. I think, in the USA, Medicare and Medicaid play a big role. Antibiotics and vaccines have helped, as well. Not to mention, advances in cardio care…
December 9, 2012 at 6:53 am #778632
dobroParticipantMore news on how life expectancy is not advancing nearly as much as people pontificating might think it is. From the WA Post…
Large swaths of the United States are showing decreasing or stagnating life expectancy even as the nation’s overall longevity trend has continued upwards, according to a county-by-county study of life expectancy over two decades.
In one-quarter of the country, girls born today may live shorter lives than their mothers, and the country as a whole is falling behind other industrialized nations in the march toward longer life, according to the study.
[snip]
The region where life expectancy is lowest, and in some places declining, begins in West Virginia, runs through the southern Appalachian Mountains and west through the Deep South into North Texas. Places of high life expectancy are more scattered. In addition to Northern Virginia they include counties in Colorado, Minnesota, Utah, California, Washington state and Florida.
Although the research didn’t look for causes, there are several possible reasons for the slowing of longevity in parts of in the United States. The rising rate of obesity and plateauing of the smoking cessation rate among women are two. Poorly controlled blood pressure and a shortage of primary-care physicians are two others.
What surprised Murray and his team was that despite increased consciousness about disparities and per capita spending on health care that is at least 50 percent higher than European countries, the United States is falling farther behind them with each passing year.
December 9, 2012 at 7:54 am #778633
HMC RichParticipantDobro, it said “May”. Look into the crystal ball and gee, some people will live longer because the “may” quit smoking. Some will live less longer because the “may” get hit by a car. Geez.
I hope people live long and healthy lives. But life span has increased since 1935. You can’t argue that. And like I said, The ACA is going to keep everyone healthy, cough, cough, so times a wasting. Raise the retirement age.
JanS. Social Security is an insurance program, administered by the Federal Government. What is the projected financial health of it in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and 30 years? It will be in the red at some point. Actually now. So please, don’t give me that line about it not being part of the deficit.
Because it ran surpluses in previous years it was said to not be part of the deficit. But now Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in. It is going to add this year $151 Billion dollars to the Deficit. Yes, $151 Billion.
Certain changes have to made.
Don’t get me wrong. I want the public and private sectors to help people. There is a place for government in peoples lives. But we need to be a bit more frugal in some areas.
December 9, 2012 at 7:55 am #778634
HMC RichParticipantI double posted. Sorry
December 9, 2012 at 9:30 am #778635
JanSParticipantRich…itchy trigger finger? ;-)
December 9, 2012 at 9:33 am #778636
JanSParticipantso..be frugal in defense. I’ve been in the army..and I’ve seen the waste…or get rid of lobbyists like Norquist, or contractors like Halliburton. Start there…and show us that those things that affect poor people are not the only things to be cut.
did you even read the links I provided? It’s not broke now… no matter what you think…
December 9, 2012 at 5:43 pm #778637
waynsterParticipantSo true Jan the GOP needs to stop signing pledges to keep from increasing taxes and cut spending that Norquist and others have dreamed up it hurts the economy more then what they think….even the IMF has come out and said get a deal done suck up the pride and do what’s right….
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/09/lagarde-zero-u-s-growth-without-a-deal/?hpt=hp_t1
December 10, 2012 at 1:46 pm #778638
redblackParticipantrich: like the budget, there are two – and only two – ways to fix social security: decrease payouts, or increase revenue. simple.
so i want you to understand what you’re advocating.
the fact is that there are people who rely on social security. right or wrong, it’s all they have. and decreasing payouts at a time when unemployment is high and poverty is increasing is a singularly bad idea.
where did this “tough love” b.s. come from anyway? i thought republicans were mostly loud and proud christians. because we’re talking about people’s lives here. but your answer seems to be, “that’ll teach ya’, you lazy bum. guess you should have wanted more. now go die quietly in an alley where i don’t have to look at you.” just so you don’t have to pay any more in taxes – when they’ve already been cut about as much as we can cut them. and so has government spending.
in other words, the republican austerity fix will guarantee that the program doesn’t work the way it was intended, that means testing will find it a routine failure, and it will therefore be a good candidate for privatization – or complete abolition. and whether or not you admit it, there are people who run your party who want that very thing.
but those of you who believe that social security is another attempt to turn the country into the USSR should have the ability to opt out of receiving checks if you can afford it. do it for your country.
on the other hand, democrats and liberals advocate increasing the revenue side to ensure that the program remains solvent.
for one thing, the payroll tax holiday should have ended last year. i’m not so sure it saved the average person or business enough to affect the economy anyway. but people waaaay smarter than i am thought that it was a good idea and had the power to make it happen. so there you go. all i know is that i, myself, didn’t really need that break.
for another thing, the cap is currently at $113,700, so income in excess of that amount is not subject to the payroll tax. let’s raise it to $125,000, and thereafter base its increases on the CPI.
lastly, like al gore said, the SS trust should be off limits for congress to borrow against. period. end of discussion. no more owing debt from the general fund to social security simply because its the only money maker in town.
no, social security was not intended to be a retirement plan. but in fact, it was designed to be a net benefit for the economy, and it’s about as capitalist an idea as you can conceive. think about it: you take a dollar, invest it in the government, it earns interest, it gets paid to someone else, he puts it back into the economy. lather, rinse, repeat. the money that comes from your check is working. it’s not languishing in some obama-crony socialist union boss’s vault. the government borrows it for 40 or 50 years, then you get it back when you need a little walking around money, or if you get yourself disabled.
to conclude, rich and others who believe that austerity is the only way to fix social security:
i want to know why you prefer making people who rely on social security suffer, rather than asking a little more sacrifice from those of us who can afford it. yeah, i get it that everyone has to pay his fair share, but you’re asking the olds and people with disabilities to give it up after they paid into that system, sometimes for 50 years. now you want them to wait to collect what they’re owed. is that fair?
do we really want to go back to the days of seniors eating cat food? or their cats, for that matter?
December 10, 2012 at 4:44 pm #778639
HMC RichParticipantNo Redblack, let me clarify.
A person who has paid in most of their adult working life is entitled to receive the insurance benefit. A person with disability that falls within the current guidelines should also receive the benefits.
Can you get it through your biased thick skulls that we are not saying get rid of Social Security!! Now I do know that the Feds hinder Medicaid (not Medicare) mightily and their needs to be fixes.
I love how you want to make me be a bad person and use a cat food example.
And furthermore, I never said that they would not get the benefit at 62 if they wanted it.
What needs to be done is a year needs to be picked that a person was born. Say 1970 or 1972 or 1980. They will be told that for them full social security benefits will be available at age 66 and then a few years later raise it to 67.
Social Security, Medicare, and most likely the ACA are here to stay. It is reasonable to adjust it once in awhile.
What I suggest will not make people starve. They would have to adjust a bit.
The payroll deduction may have helped some but I personally thought it was a bad idea to defund or contribute less to the future for people. But they did it. I felt there were other options but what is done is done.
Yes, I care about people too but many of you imagine the worst.
December 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm #778640
WorldCitizenParticipantI was under the impression that people who were born after 1970 weren’t the people who f—-d up Social Security. I believe that “accomplishment” lies squarely on the shoulders of the folks getting ready to collect now. Not that I want my parents to get short changed for being in the same generation of those who made the decisions to screw up a perfectly good system, but it’d be nice to see a little accountability from those who would like benefits pushed back for those of us who were in diapers when the decision to take the SS surplus was made.
Push back my retirement benefits? F–k that! I did nothing wrong. I’ve been paying into SS since I was 15. Fix it now. I shouldn’t have to pay for your generation’s greedy ways. It’s not like the people making the decisions couldn’t do math. They knew the size of the Boomer population was going to cause a world of hurt but took the surplus anyway and blew it on whatever. Now they want to gradually increase the retirement age of my generation after their generation will be dead. Convenient.
December 10, 2012 at 5:16 pm #778641
JanSParticipantRich. I was born in 1947… my year for full benefits is when I’m 66 years old…so it’s already been tweaked…
December 10, 2012 at 5:39 pm #778642
dobroParticipant“Can you get it through your biased thick skulls that we are not saying get rid of Social Security!”
While we’re talking about biased thick skulls, maybe these facts- facts, not RW mythology- could be restated and, perhaps, understood.
1. SS is not going broke, is not bankrupt,will not even have to reduce benefits for upwards of 25 years EVEN IF WE DO NOTHING.
2. The only thing we have to do to insure its solvency far into the future is RAISE THE CAP on taxation from its current amount to what R/B suggested.
voila! No benefit cuts, no changing eligibility ages, no nothing. SS is now fine until our great grandchildren are collecting.
Feel those vibrations against your skull? That’s some facts knocking.
December 10, 2012 at 6:46 pm #778643
DBPMemberFollowing dobro’s latest comments, I think we should raise the cap and expand the basis so it includes unearned (i.e., investment) as well as earned income.
Secondly, we should consider means testing. Why are we still sending SS payments to multi-millionaires if solvency is an issue?
***************************************************************************************
dobro you seem to think these changes would be easy, and maybe they would be. But if that’s the case, why do you think they haven’t been implemented already? Why is it that, even after so many years of an SS fix being on our national To Do list, we still haven’t checked it off?
December 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm #778644
WorldCitizenParticipantIt’s easy to put off for the future that which is not politically advantageous today. Fixing Social Security takes more money from people who aren’t paying it yet. (I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but probably not much.)
December 10, 2012 at 7:46 pm #778645
hooper1961MemberDobro
Raising the income threshold is not fair unless you want to fix the unjust payback formulas! The current formulas greatly those that pay the fewest dollars into SS.
Adjusting the retirement age up is the most equitable solution – everyone is treated exactly the same!
December 10, 2012 at 8:01 pm #778646
WorldCitizenParticipantHow exactly is it not fair to raise the threshold? We’re talking about a public safety net, aren’t we? Are you saying it’s never been fair, so we shouldn’t make it solvent for generations to come?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.