GOP Senators: Raise Retirement Age To 70

[Purveyor]

Source: THE HILL

Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah) previewed their proposal on Fox News, saying that it will put the entitlement program on a long-term path to solvency without raising taxes.

The senators said that their plan would gradually raise the retirement age from 67 to 70 and would not affect individuals age 56 or older. Graham said that the proposal uses the same formula Congress used to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67, so that people born in 1970 would become the first group to have a retirement age of 70.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/155715-gop-senators-raise-retirement-age-to-70

[sharp_stick]

1. I like the fact that it's always

gradually with these pricks. Just long enough that it won't piss off the only people in the country that'll still vote for them.

C'mon idiots if you really believe it get on with it. Raise the retirement age tomorrow you gutless bunch of lying pricks.

[Turbineguy]

2. Plus given

that their environmental and health policies will reduce life expectancy, the problem gets fixed from 2 directions at once.

[ProudDad]

74. +1000

At the rate they're (NOT) dealing with Catastrophic Global Climate Destabilization and resource depletion, especially food and potable water...

Large Air-Breathing Mammals won't be around much longer to collect Social Security or use Medicare...

[hayu_lol]

6. Fine...but put riders on the bill so that ...

all members of congress(house and senate)get a pay reduction to $50,000/yr, no benefits except SS, and pay rent for their office space in DC.

[Demeter]

69. Add Legislators MUST Retire by 70

No more fossilized voting.

[UpInArms]

87. spot on .... +10000

eom

[russspeakeasy]

21. Do it you sick bastards. People will find your address.

[piggy2000]

24. Life Expectancy - 77.9 years

So people work all their lives to pay into social security and the average person can only enjoy retirement for 7 years??


This is a horrible idea! Lower the retirement age to 60 and create more jobs!! Make the people at the top----who use all the resources in the US to create their wealth---- pay their taxes!

[bossy22]

27. just as horrible an idea

lowering the retirement age won't create new jobs- all it will do at best is be replacement of older workers for younger ones on a 1:1 basis (which in reality it won't- probably less. Many times small businesses find it easier just to "ride out" an older employees time than cut that job while he/she is still in it. once said employee retirees the job is cut).

Also- even a 1:1 replacement isnt enough to keep SS solvent- SS solvence IIRC requires atleast 3:1 ratio of worker:dependent. Therefore continually adding people to the SS rolls at a 1:1 basis makes the ratio even worse bringing the program closer to insolvency (which in all intensive purposes its already at)

[plumbob]

39. Social Security is 100% solvent through 2037 with no changes needed.

After 2037, 75% of benefits can be paid with no changes.

The only change we need is to increase the cap at which SS is withheld, and then the system is solvent forever. That $2.6 TRILLION surplus in SS is a result of us doubling our own SS taxes in the 80s just for this purpose.

Actually, as interest rates rise (and they will, because total debt is not going to decrease), the return on the surplus will extend the date past 2037 anyway. 2037 is the year the oldest boomers turn 91. They'll be dead. Same for those born in 47, 48, 49, 50, you get the idea. The youngest will be 73, five years from death for the average American.

Love to see a link on nobody hires to replace retired workers, since my anecdotal experience has been that it takes 2 or 3 young workers to replace one really experienced and competent professional. This spans banking, insurance, oil production, and education.

[bossy22]

43. 2.6 trillion dollar surplus is gone

and all that remains is an IOU from the treasury. That is the most common fallacy- that there is some magical bank acct that is holding 2.6 trillion dollars- there isnt...all that surplus was given to the General Fund which issued debt to the SSA. So what the SSA has is 2.6 Trillion dollars worth of treasury notes. So how do you change a treasury note into a SS check?- either raise taxes, borrow more, or quantatively easing the money supply by transferring the SS trust fund onto the Fed's balance sheet)

And yes- often it does take more young workers to replace experienced old workers- the thing is for every job that that requires, there is another job that just disapears entirely. That is from my experience.

[plumbob]

47. Oh, please. These are US Treasury bonds. We change these bonds

into money and vice versa every Monday of the world.

"Liquidity" is the term used to describe how easy it is to sell something. Highly liquid bonds include U.S. Treasuries and debt issued by large, blue-chip corporations.

http://www.fool.com/bonds/bonds04.htm

Put down the koolaid and check out any reputable brokerage. We continuously redeem and sell billions of bonds from the US government on a daily basis.

Because if bonds are no good, then we don't need to worry about the $14 trillion national debt. It's already no good. Whew! What a relief that those suckers in China, Japan, huge banks, and retirement funds were too stupid to know they were just throwing their money away.

[bossy22]

50. you arent thinking

HOW DO WE CHANGE BONDS INTO CASH???? thats the issue...we have to change 2.6 trillion dollars worth of bonds to cash ON TOP OF OUR OTHER DEBT. so how do we do it- there are only 3 ways- raise taxes, borrow more, or print money.

[Bigmack]

55. We don't do the entire $2.6 T all at once...

fer crissakes! The Trust Fund is like any other obligation backed by Treasury bonds. We don't have to pay China off all at once, do we? We just pay on the installment plan. If we can't make the nut, we borrow enough to make the vig.

If anybody talks about defaulting on those bonds, the economy..the country.. is dead.

[plumbob]

62. Plus you didn't read the link from actual investment folks, did you?

Because you are operating in a fact-free zone and are resistant to learning from actual experts, I can do no more.

Have a great day, a nice long life, and the retirement you deserve!

[Demeter]

70. We Tax

We tax people with money. Rich people. Dead rich people. People who have money to squander on astro-turfing political fantasies.

[joeglow3]

56. Using your logic, I have $1 million in retirement

You see, I put 100% of my paychecks in my retirement account. I then loaned this money to myself to live off of. All I have to do is redeem those IOU's and I am a millionaire.

[plumbob]

61. Actually, you should have put your neighbors' paycheck in your account.

You earned interest on it for 40 years or more, and now you must write them a small monthly check for their retirement. If they die, you get to keep it all.

[joeglow3]

64. Wow, that went over your head.

1. Government collects taxes.
2. Government buys Treasury bonds, "loaning" money to itself.
3. Government spends money.
4. Government tells us how they have all this money.

NPR had a great piece on this, effectively using the same example I did. But, their researchers must not understand how it works. You should call them and straighten them out.

[plumbob]

81. Over my head? Let's see, so you claim that the government taxes itself,

right?

But you said that you saved your own paychecks.

I said that collecting taxes is from others, so put your neighbors' money in the account.

Which one of us is confused? Unless you really mean that the government taxes itself.

Please don't get me to defend an NPR piece that there is no link for and no information about, other than your misunderstanding of whatever it was that they said. Unless they really said that the government taxes itself. In which case, NPR analysts of not, they don't get it.

But as I tell my students, please ask questions in class, because the people that produced you cannot answer them.

Any more questions?

[joeglow3]

85. Let's try it once more

1. You collect your neighbor's money and put it in an account.
2. You withdrawal said money and take a bunch of nice trips, replacing the money with an I.O.U.
3. You tell your neighbor she has nothing to worry about as her fund is solvent.

So, when your neighbor comes to collect, what do you give them?

NEVER did I say the government taxes itself (as a 10+ tax CPA, I think I understand how taxes work).

[plumbob]

90. What is a 10+ tax CPA, pray tell?

Thanks.



(Of course, you give them their money, from your continuous taxation of the whole population from then to now, or from issuances and assumptions, a worldwide market).

I suppose next you will challenge the idea that low tax rates are what are killing the US economy? My CPA lamented Reagan's actions as necessarily turning us into a third world enclave of money-hoarders, rather than the most productive economy in the world. The higher tax rates are, the more productive.

Why? High marginal taxes are a disincentive to hold cash, to invest it so as to lessen tax liability. Investment means production. Today, US corporations have at least $1.9 TRILLION in CASH laying around doing nothing, because there is no penalty for that. Look at production, output, poverty and Gini since Reagan.

[joeglow3]

93. Sorry. 10+ YEARS

You seemed to completely gloss over my point. Again, how can you say SS is solvent?

[plumbob]

97. How can you say it's not?

http://collegesavings.about.com/od/typesofinvestments/a/Treasury_T_Bill.htm

When it comes to “safe” investments, there’s arguably nothing safer than U.S. Treasury Bills. “T-Bills”, as they are often called, are very short-term bonds issued at a discount and mature in less than one year. These bonds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Treasury and would only become worthless if the U.S. Treasury itself went bankrupt.
For many investors, T-Bills are considered the single best place to park money that must not be exposed to any risk or may be needed in a short period of time. While the interest paid on T-Bills is less than that of money markets or savings accounts, an investor can rest assured that their money will be safe and available when their T-Bills mature.


http://www.wisebread.com/treasury-bills-for-ordinary-folks


I want to suggest an alternative that gives you the maximum safety and considerable flexibility: treasury bills.

The time was that treasury bills were an esoteric investment only available to the elite. You needed a brokerage account (or at least a friendly banker), plus a minimum investment of $10,000.


And I'm glossing nothing. Take your bank. Put $10,000,000 in it. The bank will loan out 80% of it, retaining $2 mil as a legally required reserve. OMG! How will you ever get your money back???!!! It's all gone! Absolutely not, of course. If you ask for the $10 mil, they will get it; from new deposits, from operating profits, from a loan by the Fed. Now if you believe that banks are solvent, yet thousands have failed over the last decade, then how can you argue that the only government program in existence to never miss a payment is insolvent?

This is why I keep reminding you that debt is not a problem, but an asset to a bank. Deposits are the liability. I'll take your word for it that you are some kind of accountant or other, but you really need to read up on government obligations and see why interest rates are so low on bonds - it's because they are flooded with willing lenders seeking safety in an uncertain world.

I'll say no more. You already have never read any link provided, responded to any analysis (what about marginal tax rates and their impact on investment and production?), or reasoned anything to my responses.

I will wish you a very long life and the retirement you deserve.

[joeglow3]

104. I have paid 100% of my bills

So, using your logic, in my example, those IOU's would be worth 100% of their value. Thus, you are saying over a million dollars in IOU's in my neighbors retirement account that I am custodian of would be worth a million dollars, even though I personally do not have a penny to my name.

You have failed to answer my question: with nothing but IOU's (T-bills) in the trust fund, how do bills get paid to SS recipients? The only answer is that we simply "create" (i.e. print) it. And all that does is lead to massive inflation, cause rating agencies around the world to change their rating, no longer making the T-bill the "safest investment."

[plumbob]

108. How do you think T-bills are redeemed daily? You are taking a snapshot

of a process when you need a movie. You have not responded to what happened to my money when the bank loaned out my deposit. How do I get my money back when I want it? Ergo, if banks loan money, then all the money is gone, and can only be repaid by printing more, with the concomitant international disaster you envision.

You badly need a course in macroeconomics. Please take one. Here's a free online from MIT:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/

I assume you would recognize MIT as an actual educational institution, would you?

[joeglow3]

112. So you redeem them on the open market

And there is now less of a demand for the notes we need to issue to fund the rest of the government. In order to get the public to purchase more notes than they demand, you have to offer a higher interest rate. Demand is NOT that elastic. You can't just sell an infinite amount. We already stretch to the ends of the demands with what our government issues in the ordinary course of their business. You really think the market will just absorb the influx of additional notes being auctioned off?

[plumbob]

115. What additional influx? You're trading one for one. And interest

rates have never been lower on these items, as you can find out in a moment of Google, so demand is at an all time high due to safety.

Since you won't educate yourself even for free, there's no point in continuing to converse,
so have a nice long life and I hope you get everything you deserve.

[joeglow3]

117. You are right. I will never get how an IOU to myself equals cash.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/money-life/the-social-security-trust-fund-myth/2944/

[plumbob]

121. from your own link:

What the Social Security trust fund does represent is a legal obligation for our government to repay the principal and interest on the special bonds in the trust fund. I have faith that these bonds will be honored

[joeglow3]

123. From all our massive surplusses???

We will need to issue MORE debt to pay off that debt.

[plumbob]

126. Don't impeach your own source. Read it. It's a decent explanation.

You for some reason want to provide the link and then contradict it.

Now good-bye. You have no interest in learning anything, as evidenced by your refusal to look at the free course from MIT on macro, by ignoring my own replies, including no new debt is required to pay these bills. Replace one for one; net debt stays the same.

Sincerely wishing you get all that you deserve there in Omaha.

[joeglow3]

128. The article explains EXACTLY as I have studied it

Essentially, it all comes down to you think there is perfectly elastic demand for T-bills. That is 100% NOT the case. However, you go on continuing to believe something with no basis in reality. I too wish you all you deserve with your analytical skills.

[joeglow3]

129. Summary of my source from a double entry accounting standpoint

1. Okay, lets assume in year 1 social security takes in $1 million. The entry for this would be:

Cash 1,000,000
Equity 1,000,000

Note, that under GAAP accounting for private companies, the offset to cash would be a liability, but not so for government accounting. Here is a 4 year old article about this:

http://truthinaccounting.blogs.com/truth/2007/05/feds_hide_socia.html

2. The trust fund then purchases 1,000,000 in bonds from the US government. The entries would be:

TRUST FUND

Bonds 1,000,000
Cash 1,000,000

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Cash 1,000,000
Bonds Payable 1,000,000

Per the article: "The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are counted both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability, since they are part of the total federal debt. Basically, one hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the “trust fund” are not separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund."

Thus, as this is presented for the government as a whole, this entry never happened.

3. General government now spends the $1,000,000 (in addition to all the cash it received from all the other bonds it sold).

Expenses (Equity) 1,000,000
Cash 1,000,000

Now, you can plainly see, the government has no cash, as a whole. However, there is STILL a future liability hanging out there that is not classifed as a liability on the balance sheet.


4a. Lets assume in year 2, SS collections equal distributions. Nothing changes in the trust fund. However, the government, as a whole, has $1,000,000 less in cash to spend on expenses. Thus, unless revenues are raised or expenses are cut, it would need to issue an additional $1,000,000 in T-bills.

4b. Lets assume in year 3, SS collections are 1,000,000 less that distributions. In this case, not only has the government, as a whole, lost out on the $1,000,000 it previously collected and spent, it needs to come up with an additional $1,000,000 to pay back to the trust fund. The only way to do this is to issue additional debt to the public.

Thus, the issue will ultimately come down to how elastic is demand for T-bills. Given that it is finite at given interest rates, they would have to offer a more attractive rate to get more people willing to buy the T-bills. Unfortunately, this results in a higher interest and further complicates problems in the future.

Thus, the article communicates EXACTLY what I said it. Hopefully, this has cleared up your clear misunderstanding of the issue. However, I am had these discussions with similar people before. Odds are this is either too complicated for you to understand, or you will choose to ignore it, arrogantly thinking you have already figured it out.

Either way, I am done trying educate you. If you arrogantly think you already understand it, no amount of evidence or reason will sway you from your crusade.

[JDPriestly]

60. The 14th Amendment requires the government to pay its debts.

It does not have to pay specific amounts to specific individuals, but it can't renege on the bonds that the SS money was used to purchase.

[CreekDog]

73. that's like saying because you have a $250k mortgage, tomorrow you have to rob a bank for 250k

or else be insolvent.

:eyes: wrong.

[enlightenment]

68. The phrase is 'for all intents and purposes'

not 'in all intensive purposes'.

Word usage counts. Particularly when you post a debatable point.

[ProudDad]

75. "jobs" is a bullshit concept.

A "job" is selling your labor (and your soul) to some rich fuck so he can get richer...

There's plenty of WORK around. It's going to take a LOT of work to replace the cancerous capitalist global economy with relocalized, steady state economies sized to the available resources in each particular bioregion...

I look around my town (Tucson, AZ) and I see LOTS of work to be done...retrofitting housing for energy efficiency, digging up roads to cut down the heat island effect, Rainwater harvesting with a VENGEANCE, Harnessing the energy of the sun with primarily passive decentralized (neighborhood sized) solar installations, mining resources from the (soon to be abandoned) McMansions in the hills, building clusters of right-sized, non-polluting industry manufacturing basic human needs and the non-polluting transit options to connect them.

Tucson is about 100 square miles with about 900,000 people. After the retirees and snow birds and the egregious war industry permanently (voluntarily) leave we should be able to build a sustainable environment for about 40 to 50,000 people)...

So, there's plenty of work, the problem isn't that. The problem is the unequal distribution of resources due to a perverse "economic system" that allows, actually encourages the exploitation of the many for the exclusive benefit of the few...

[joeglow3]

58. As opposed to 1950?

The retirement age was 62 and life expectancy was 69-70 years old?

[Dark]

59. That's the thing. We should be encouraging the elderly to retire, w/good benies

They get more time to enjoy and it frees up jobs for everyone else

[Connie_Corleone]

3. They can kiss my "born in 1971" ASS!!

[KeepItReal]

5. And follow up with my '72!

Eom

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[democracy1st]

103. any relatives still voting for these frauds?

[left on green only]

125. Attention GOP Senators

Are there any among you who do not know the sound that shit makes when forcefully flung against a wall? GOP. Come on now little boys. It's time to put all of our money back that you robbed from our Social Security System, just so that you could give yourselves (the wealthy) lower taxes.

[Zorra]

4. How can people vote for these horrible evil men? nt

[notesdev]

7. And by the time those born in 1970 near the age of 70...

... they'll have raised the retirement age to 80.

Evidence continues to accumulate to support my conviction that there will be nothing left for anyone in a post-Boomer generation.

[think]

8. I am not entirely against this plan

as long as they cut the military and bring back the meager social safety net they are planning to destroy.

I hope to live longer and be healthier than my folks. This may not happen in my particular case but it is the general trend. JMO

[Angry Dragon]

13. .........

:thumbsdown:

[KamaAina]

18. If they cut the military, they wouldn't need to touch SS.

:eyes:

[bossy22]

30. actually they would

cutting the militarily entirely (which is stupid, short sighted, and completely unrealistic) will only push off the inevitable for a decade. Not everything should fall before the alter that is SS and medicare

[KamaAina]

36. Who said anything about cutting the military entirely?

Merely subjecting its bloated budget to the same scrutiny as the rest would result in substantial savings.

[bossy22]

46. that wouldnt be enough

[plumbob]

41. There is no altar for SS. It costs the government not one dime from

general revenues and is the most successful program in government history. That is why there are so many motherfuckers trying to steal the surplus. Their first job is to convince people it doesn't exist.

Apologies to all actual motherfuckers, who in reality is everyone who already has one child, but the metaphoric value is still there.

[bossy22]

44. SS has been very successful

but that doesnt mean it will continue to be solvent as the population demographics change. And the surplus has already been "stolen"- all surpluses get loaned to the general fund in return for special debt issued by the treasury. There is no bank acct in washington with 2.6 trillion sitting in it- the surplus is all in GOVERNMENT DEBT. so the issue is we have to convert government debt to an SS check- which can only be done by either raising taxes to pay off the debt, issue more debt to cover the current debt, or transfer the debt to the fed's balance sheet and print money out.

[plumbob]

49. Or redeem the bonds as needed, and other borrowers will borrow the most

desirable and safest investment on the planet, as happens every day.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Nice visual here on actual continuous transaction. Please keep in mind that debt is an asset to banks, and deposits are a liability. If you're having trouble with that, take some accounting.

Or ask your CPA>

[golddigger]

23. What utter BS.

[EC]

35. Believe me when you reach your 60's you won't be

thinking this way. Even with a sit down office job, there are days I wonder if I'll make it. Everything starts hurting, your back, your fingers, your feet, on and on. Not even to mention digestive problems that everyone seems to run into now a days...Try getting to work on time when you're stuck to the toilet.


70 is really too old to be working any kind of real schedule.

Just this morning there was a letter in the paper complaining about the unions and their policy of seniority which keeps the "older, slower and non-productive" employees working. So now they want us all to work until we are 70, do they (and you) really think it's productive? Do you really think employers will want unproductive employees? Or that there will be many employers (in any number) that would give a 60 -70 year old a job?

[RebelOne]

65. No, 70 is not too old to continue working.

I was working at the age of 71 but was laid off in 2010 because the company was downsizing and it wasn't because of my age. Other workers younger than me were also laid off at the same time. Otherwise, I would still be working now. I had a sit-down job and worked 8 hours a day. I enjoyed it, I am now in forced retirement because no one will hire me at this age unless other than WalMart as a greeter, which I would not do anyway.

[EC]

67. Well, I'm glad you managed

Good for you. I'm a secretary and in my 60's. I'd like to keep working a bit longer...But I have to say, that just getting to work this winter almost did me in. My hearing is going and the hearing appliances available don't do shit - because of the constant ringing in my ears, so doing that part of my job is in jeopardy, since I can't hear what the caller is saying half of the time. My fingers are always stiff, making typing and writing painful toward the end of the day and this damn ergonomically correct chair leaves my back, shoulders and neck hurting the rest of the evening after work. Don't think I'll work many more years, I am glad I'm on Social Security because I know I wouldn't be able to handle this much longer. (By the way I have other responsibilities to care for other than work - my mother is in her 80's and needs help - so I'm there every day after work before I can go home) anyway...yes, it can be done...but why would a civilized society want people to work beyond an age where it becomes a burden after working their whole life?

[Downwinder]

71. There is no one fits all. Some people are able to work at an older

age. Some should retire earlier. If I were still flying at 70, there would be a lot of dead passengers.

[wickerwoman]

100. They don't really expect people to work until they're 70.

They expect people to get sick in their fifties and sixties, be forced to retire with partial benefits, not be able to afford healthcare and die before they're old enough to qualify for Medicare.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

53. You may well live longer. It depends on your socioeconomic status, however.

According to the CBO report on life expectancies here in the US, those living in higher socioeconomic brackets are the ones living longer.


Per the 2008 Congressional Budget Office report:

In 1980, the difference in life expectancy at age 65 between the highest and lowest socioeconomic groups was 0.3 years. By 2000, the difference had grown to 1.6 years. That increase in the gap equals more than 80 percent of the increase in overall average life expectancy at age 65 over that period.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9104/LifeExpectancy_Brief.1.1.shtml

If you're one of the lucky ones who will benefit from such a plan, congratulations. If you're one of the unfortunate ones who will work your entire life and die before you ever see any of the benefits you've paid in returned to you, my condolences.

As I said down thread regarding this topic, the very people the Republicans are fighting to not raise the SS cap on are the ones who will receive their benefits the longest. While the rest of the population, assuming the current curve in life expectancies continues, will be seeing less and and less of their percentages living to ever receive a dime.

[sarcasmo]

89. They won't cut the military that is never talked about when the right discuss the budget

[Bonhomme Richard]

9. Hell, if we wait until people die to be eligible...

we can save it all.

[The Magistrate]

10. There You Go, Sir: A Bold, Serious, And Courageous Plan Of Reform!

That is in fact pretty much what the boogers are aiming for...

[toddwv]

26. BINGO!

Less money for SS, more money for overseas bases.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

34. I believe that is the plan. n/t

[alp227]

11. then do the same for Congress and Supreme Court n/t

[felinetta]

12. The only time EVER the word "entitlement" should be used is in relation

to the top 2%.  The tax break they got in Dec 2010 was
definitely an entitlement. Greedy bastards.

[Roy Rolling]

51. yes!

I agree completely

[flamingdem]

14. This is BULLSHIT, people are not living longer and no doubt cancer rates will

skyrocket with all the crap in the environment thanks to the GM nuke disaster in Japan and other unregulated spew now that the EPA has been gutted by repukes.

[wickerwoman]

101. +1. With skyrocketing diabetes rates,

its likely that 20-35 year olds today will be one of the first generations to have a shorter life-expectancy than their parents.

Plus once the baby boomers are through, we won't have the same problem with skewed demographics. There will be a more normal ratio between working adults and the elderly. $20 says we won't go back to the old system though.

[udbcrzy2]

15. I think mine says 67-1/2 right now - born 1959 n/t

[truebrit71]

84. Mine too...born in 63

...by the time they get around to deciding on what age it will be for my kid it'll be 90....assuming the entire eastern seaboard isn't underwater by then from the effects of the global warming myth...

[Lars39]

16. These ingrates have never done a physically demanding job in their lives.

:grr:

[Judi Lynn]

57. The G.O.P.'s Senator Strom Thurmond was the only Senator to reach 100 in office!

They used to wheel him in to vote when he was needed.

Yup, as long as nothing is needed of anyone that can't be done by a Republican senator, everyone would do just fine "working" for 5 additional years.

[bluethruandthru]

17. Only if these senators are forced to work as bricklayers or carpet installers until they turn 70!

Otherwise...hell no!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. They need to be honest. They're banking on lower socioeconomic people dying.

Before they ever draw their Social Security.

The Widening Gap Across Socioeconomic Groups

Although the gaps in life expectancy between men and women and between whites and blacks have narrowed somewhat, differences by income and educational attainment have been growing. The close relationship between socioeconomic status and mortality—the flip side of longevity—has been long observed and is well documented.5 Individuals with higher lifetime earnings or more education experience lower mortality rates than those with lower lifetime earnings or less education. But in recent decades, socioeconomic status has become an even more important indicator of life expectancy, whether measured at birth or at age 65 (see Figure 2).



Source: Congressional Budget Office using data from Gopal K. Singh and Mohammad Siahpush, "Widening Socioeconomic Inequalities in U.S. Life Expectancy, 1980–2000," International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 35, no. 4 (2006), pp. 969–979; and National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2007 (Hyattsville, Md., 2007), Table 27.

a. Socioeconomic groups are defined using county-level indicators of education, occupation, unemployment, wealth, income, and housing conditions.


■ In 1980, life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest.6 By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years. The 1.7-year increase in the gap amounts to more than half of the increase in overall average life expectancy at birth between 1980 and 2000.

■ In 1980, the difference in life expectancy at age 65 between the highest and lowest socioeconomic groups was 0.3 years. By 2000, the difference had grown to 1.6 years. That increase in the gap equals more than 80 percent of the increase in overall average life expectancy at age 65 over that period.

More: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9104/LifeExpectancy_Brief.1.1.shtml

All you hear on the news is how the life expectancy is rising. They don't go into detail as to exactly who is living longer. Funny thing is, those in the upper income brackets, who the Republicans are fighting to keep from raising SS taxes on, are the ones who will be using their Social Security benefits the longest.

Edit to point out the linked information comes directly from the CBO.

[Roy Rolling]

54. Voodoo economics

Of course the gap narrows by age 65....the lowest socioeconomic groups have already died disproportionately and are no longer included. To further explain, by the time they are 80 both groups have almost the exact same life expectancy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

76. It narrows but it's increasing at a rate greatly disproportionate to the rise in life expectancy

They do acknowledge that the increase in the gap after age 65 accounts for more than 80% of the increase in average life expectancy after 65 years of age. Which leads to the unanswered question, what overall percentage of lower socioeconomic people are living past 70 vs those with higher socioeconomic status?

[groundloop]

20. DO AWAY WITH THE CAP ON SOCIAL SECURITY TAX. PERIOD.

But noooo, that would be a tax increase. Oooohh, we're afraid to do that.

[droidamus2]

22. so that's how their going to do it

They can't kill Social Security directly but if they keep raising the retirement age to the point where 90% of the people that would become eligible die before they reach retirement age then the Mepublicans can just say 'well this program is antiquated and no longer needed because nobody is really using it anymore so let's dump the remaining money in Social Security into the general fund so we Mepublicans can give to our rich contributors'.

[CBGLuthier]

25. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Work us till we drop so the rich can get richer.

Fuck all these bastards and fuck you know who if he lets them get away with it.

[Loge23]

28. Keep it up, R's

Sooner, rather than later, the freakin' dam will break.

[fugop]

29. It needs a second law to go with it

... to force people to hire or keep on staff those workers in that age bracket. Other than Congress/Senate, where else do people get to keep working until they're 90+ years old? Seriously, the older people are when they lose jobs, the harder it is to find someone to hire you. Everyone's looking for cheaper, younger workers. To raise the retirement age just ensures you'll have more people out of work with nowhere to turn.

[harun]

31. Obama should put forth lowering the retirement age to create jobs.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[OwnedByFerrets]

33. Fuck you, you soul-less MOTHERFUCKERS!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

37. First of all, the jobs are not there

if the retirement age is raised to 70, then there'll be a lot of 66-70 year olds on the unemployment line.

Second, a lot of jobs just physically drain a person. So a lot of 66-70 year olds will be on disability instead of retirement.

It's a stupid idea. From stupid senators.

[ProudDad]

78. Actually, from personal experience

age discrimination kicks in at about age 55...

[raouldukelives]

38. Everyone chill the fuck out

Our Presidents got this. Nobody will have to retire until 71.

[indimuse]

40. Time to throw ALL the Thieves OUT of Washing ton!

Sorry. That's what they are. THEY stole your houses!THEY stole your health!THEY SOLD your FREEDOMS! How long are we going to allow them to get away with this RAPE AND PILLAGING of our country! It is NOT just the repukez! This president is a FAR cry from the guy I THOUGHT I was voting for! :mad:

[Kelvin Mace]

45. Can we start with these guys?

Richard Lugar
Chuck Grassley
Orrin Hatch
Richard Shelby
Jim Inhofe
Pat Roberts
John McCain
Thad Cochran
Lamar Alexander

[shanti]

48. where do they come up with the

arbitrary age of 56?? fuck 'em! :grr:

[cppuddy]

52. political third rail

They just touch the political third rail, congrats. My they get there butts thrown out of office.

[JDPriestly]

63. I very much wanted to work until I was 70.

I even went back to school to get an entirely new degree at the age of 50 so that I would be able to do it.

There are no jobs for older people. And that is especially true if you have some sort of disability, like many, many people over 65. Most of us have hearing loss, and it cannot always be lessened.

Also, hearing aids and other such things are very expensive.

[ProudDad]

79. I will be "working" until I croak

I won't ever be able to have a "job" again, but I will work...

Mostly at stuff that uplifts the human race but isn't valued by our bullshit capitalist "economy"...

So I have to do my work supported by my meager Social Security check...until they find a way to end that...

We must reject the concept of "job", recognize "Work" and make sure everyone has their basic needs met whether they have a "job" or not...

[JDPriestly]

98. Oh, work. I do lots of that. But I don't get paid for it.

[krabigirl]

66. Lovely. So being born in 1970, I won't be able to retire until 70, yet who will hire someone 60+?

[ProudDad]

80. "who will hire someone 60+"

If you're among the elite top 2% -- you won't have a problem...

If you're (like me) among the Other 98% -- you're fucked...

[truebrit71]

86. Wal-Mart, part-time, no benefits...

...you know, just like the American Dreams says....

[ProudDad]

91. Yep ... and part of the employment package

are directions on how to collect food stamps and TANIF...

As for Health Care -- Die Quickly...and NOT on the job...!

[Johnny Harpo]

72. Sure...Raise It To 70..That Gives All Of Us....

5 more years in which we can get laid off.

But beware...if this idea lives...it will go through both the House and the Senate like a hot knife through butter.

[ProudDad]

77. "Job" is a bullshit concept...

A "job" is selling your labor (and your soul) to some rich fuck so he can get richer...

But "Work"...there's plenty of WORK around.

It's going to take a LOT of work to replace the cancerous capitalist global economy that dying with relocalized, steady state economies sized to the available resources in each particular bioregion and designed to fulfill the needs of humans, our fellow creatures and our environment...

I look around my town (Tucson, AZ) and I see LOTS of work to be done...retrofitting housing for energy efficiency, digging up roads to cut down the heat island effect, Rainwater harvesting with a VENGEANCE, Harnessing the energy of the sun with primarily passive decentralized (neighborhood sized) solar installations, mining resources from the (soon to be abandoned) McMansions in the hills, building clusters of right-sized, non-polluting industry manufacturing basic human needs and the non-polluting transit options to connect them.

Tucson is about 100 square miles with about 900,000 people. After the retirees and snow birds and the egregious war industry permanently (voluntarily) leave we should be able to build a sustainable environment for about 40 to 50,000 people...

So, there's plenty of work to be done.

The problem is the unequal distribution of resources due to a perverse "economic system" that allows, actually encourages the exploitation of the many for the exclusive benefit of the few...

[Juneboarder]

82. How 'bout raising the retirement age to 70 ... AND ...

increasing the tax for the wealthy. What better way to get out of debt as quickly as possible. Effing repukes and their stupid ideas. "Oh wait! Here's another plan to keep our tax cuts!!" Really?!?

[rayofreason]

83. I have every intention of working till I can't...

...be productive any more. I like what I do. I have seen to many cases of people who stop doing what they do, then find a huge hole in their lives. Some die not too long after. Keeping active means living a longer, better life.

But apart from that there is the practical issue of my 401K that turned into a 201K. While there has been considerable recovery, there is no cushy defined benefit plan for me. And recently I read an article that pointed out that if you stop saving for retirement around 62, then spend that money you would have saved to have fun (vacations, cruises, all manner of treats), when you do retire at 70 you end up with much more money (8 more years of compounded interest), and a shorter period over which to spend it (say 15 years instead of 20). That leads to a much better quality of life in retirement, with the last few years of work being much more fun.

So I'll keep going to at least 70. Remember that when Social Security was first implemented the life expectancy was 63. To argue that the retirement age should never change as life expectancy rises rapidly is rather foolish.

[ProudDad]

92. It's only under capitalism that any of this is an issue...

But that's what one can expect from an "economic system" that is built around artificial scarcity for the many in order to provide luxury for the few...

[rayofreason]

99. What nonsense!

In fact it is only in capitalist countries of the late 20th and early 21st century that people have been able to to retire (stop working) for an extended period of time (20 years or more in many cases) and get financial support on which to live. In all precapitalist (i.e., agricultural) societies, you work until you are unable to work any longer, then hope that your children can take care of you for the short time that you have left. That is why there is a strong preference for sons in such societies. And remember that in precapitalist societies the life expectancy for the vast bulk of people is only about 40 years.

But as capitalist societies became richer and industrialized, life expectancy grew rapidly. Life expectancy for an American born in the latter half of the 19th century was about 40 years, where as now it is about 75 years. This is only one of many huge benefits to the vast bulk of ordinary people of living in liberal democratic capitalist states. The same societies in the early to mid 20th century implemented a social pension of one form or another - but initially they were all pegged pretty close to life expectancy so that only a few years would be paid out per person, on average. Most people would still work all their lives, but at least at the end there would be some support. But as life expectancy grew longer the payouts grew to be a larger and larger fraction of total spending, especially once health care was added. Worse yet, the demographic shift left fewer and fewer working people to pay for those benefits. All the industrialized countries are now facing this critical issue.

In those countries that call themselves socialist (whether they are or not is immaterial), the situation is even worse because without exception they are all or were (until they dumped socialism) economic basket cases. Thus they have even less resources to devote to this concept of providing people a "retirement", which is really a bizarre anomaly when one consider the history of all settled societies, as well as what we know of prehistory. Only when socialist societies dump socialism as a organizing principle for economic activity do they improve their economic prospects. China is a case in point. It is pretty much capitalist, though retains the autocratic and corrupt government that all socialist states develop. Thus, while we do have a major civilization-level challenge in figuring out how to handle retirement is a fiscally sustainable way, rich countries will always have more options than poor countries, and the only way to become rich is to follow an essentially capitalist path since preindustrialism did not produce rich societies capable of supporting retirement and all economies organized along a Marxist perspective have been miserable failures.

[ronnie624]

106. The capitalists have enjoyed their largess through dominance and exploitation.

Empire is what has enabled the enrichment of Western elites.

[rayofreason]

109. More empty rhetoric...

...devoid of intellectual content.

Throughout the history and prehistory of humanity, grinding poverty and life expectancies in the 20s-30s have been the lot of >95% of humanity. What has allowed people in the modern world to escape those conditions is capitalism, which led to industrialism and a massive expansion of wealth. Within capitalist societies there arose a religion, socialism, whose adherents have attempted on several occasions to implement in the real world. The result in every case has been a disaster.

So yes, western elites have been enriched. Steve Jobs is a multi-billionaire. I don't give a shit about that since what I got out of it was a ipod that contains all of my music for a very cheap cost. And that is something that no king of old had, no matter how powerful and wealthy. The same with so much else, like life expectancy and the amazing reduction in infant mortality in modern societies compared to premodern ones.

Face it. To be anti-capitalist is to be against the modern world with all of the advantages for ordinary people that capitalism created. To be anti-capitalist is to be anti-progressive.

[CreekDog]

111. "In those countries that call themselves socialist...the situation is even worse..."

Worst in what?

Childhood poverty? No.

Education? No.

Health Care? No.

Debt and Deficits? No.

Standard of Living? No.

Vacation time? No.

Economic power? No.

Homelessness? No.

Why, socialism sounds horrible!

(i see the point you are trying to make)

[rayofreason]

114. Name one such country. n/t

[CreekDog]

116. Germany, France, Sweden...

too many?

[rayofreason]

118. Those are all...

...capitalist democracies with extensive social spending, not states that claim to be socialist and organized along Marxist principles. And they are have precisely the same demographic problem as do all of the advanced capitalist democracies.

[CreekDog]

124. i'd rather have a "demographic problem" than have extensive poverty

failing educational systems and non-universal healthcare.

maybe you wouldn't. :eyes:

[wickerwoman]

102. That's a good plan,

but 52% of people over 65 have a physical impairment (fading vision, poor hearing, diabetes, arthritis, memory loss, dementia, back pain, etc.).

Many, many people will be forced to retire before 70 because of health problems because they literally can't work anymore. My dad had to retire at 53 because he was in so much pain he couldn't sit down for more than 10 minutes at a time. If he hadn't had veterans benefits, he never would have lived to 60.

And that's the plan, clearly, for "saving" medicare and social security. Widen the gap between when most people can physically work and when their benefits kick in and then hope most people die before they qualify.

Plus, for many people life expectancy is actually going down, especially in lower socio-economic groups. Diabetes takes 15-20 years off your life and the stats on that are horrendous (1 in 4 among Caucasians- close to 1 in 2 projected for lower income African American and Hispanic teens).

The people who actually need these programmes are the ones getting shafted, just because richer people with Cadillac health care are living longer.

[rayofreason]

105. While I sympathize....

...with individual cases, that is what disability insurance (when it works well) is supposed to be for. And one cannot extrapolate from individual cases to the population as a whole. Life expectancies are going up, for all groups, not down. There still is a substantial gap between groups, such as the gap between whites and african-americans, but the numbers continue to improve steadily for all, with life expectancy for black females now just a bit longer than that for white males. You can get the numbers here (take a look at Fig. 1)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf#022

[wickerwoman]

110. I'm not disputing that life expectencies have been going up,

I'm saying that when people who are younger today (especially in populations where 50% of the people are morbidly obese- which is what's projected for poor African American and Hispanic communities) become older, life expectancies will go down largely because of diabetes but also because of other obesity related illnesses like heart disease.

"Number of Americans with Diabetes Expected to Double or Triple by 2050"
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101022.html

"Diabetes was the seventh leading cause of death in 2007, and is the leading cause of new cases of blindness among adults under age 75, kidney failure, and non-accident/injury leg and foot amputations among adults."

More stats on obesity and African American communities:

http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6456

(78% of African American women are overweight or obese; 24% of 6-11 year old African American girls are obese; 43% of African Americans under 17 are overweight or obese)

" * More than 80 percent of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight.
* People who are overweight are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure, high levels of blood fats, and LDL cholesterol -- all risk factors for heart disease and stroke.
* In 2007, African Americans were 50% less likely to engage in active physical activity as Non-Hispanic Whites.
* Deaths from heart disease and stroke are almost twice the rate for African Americans as compared to Whites."

Obesity rates in children have doubled in the last ten years.

And again, more than half of people over age 65 suffer a serious impairment. Today. That's only going to get worse with time as today's 70 year olds were born in the 1940s and didn't have the same epic problems with obesity that generations born after the 1970s have had.

Also, there's a difference between living to 72 and enjoying decent health up until the end and living to 80 but spending the last 30 years of your life blind, on dialysis, in a wheelchair, etc. Just because people are "living" longer doesn't mean that their quality of life (or capacity to work later into their lfie) has improved.

So, yeah, I hope you stay well enough to work until you're 70. More than half of your peers probably won't. And I don't think we should base policy on "it's always gone up in the past!" and to hell with the likely effects of obesity and diabetes on more vulnerable parts of the population.

[rayofreason]

113. You do point...

...to serious problems, which need more focused research since genetic differences may result in different effectiveness of drugs in different populations. And it is also true that African American and Hispanics are not included in medical trials in numbers as their percentage of the population merits, resulting in a knowledge deficit that affects the health of those communities.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that life expectancies in those populations are decreasing due to the health problems you point out. This is because, even though diabetes incidence is on the rise, other killers like cancers have dropping death rates. So you trade one for the other. Also, remember that female African American life expectancies have risen faster than that of white males, so that now life expectancy for female African Americans is greater than than for white males. The fact that there is still a racial gap is something to be concerned about, but there is no evidence of retrograde motion, as, for example, took place in Russia among males over the past decade.

And in fact, most of the people I know were well able to work until 70 and many do. I know that that is not statistically valid, but neither is someone saying that most of the people that they know are not able to work until 70. However, if you go by the CDCs numbers, if people could work until 62 in 1968 when life expectancy was 70 years, they should be able to work until 70 now when life expectancy is 78.

[sarcasmo]

88. I knew this was going to be their plan all along and I even had the age right. Make me sick.

[peacebird]

94. they hope more people DIE working, so they don't have to pay retirement bennies

If I work to 70 then there are young workers behind me who will not get promotions, people behind THEM will not get promotions either, so young workers will have to put off having families because they can't afford it.
Frankly I would retire in a year if it were not for the prohibitive cost of health care.

[devils chaplain]

95. Insane...

Just because people are living longer doesn't mean we can work longer -- and even more so, it doesn't mean employers will keep us employed longer.

[lovuian]

96. No this is absolutely ridiculous and absurd

what' next raising the age to 100 ...:argh:

[jpak]

107. Cut GOP Senator's taxpayer salaries first

Dipshits

yup

[Strelnikov_]

119. Repay what is owed and quit raiding the fund and it will be OK

Basically, the GOP is proposing to default on US citizens who paid into SS in deference to foreign bondholders.

Shouldn't their priority be to protect US citizens assets, not those of Communist China?

[and-justice-for-all]

122. +1 ..nt

[and-justice-for-all]

120. Oh fuck it, how about there be no more retirement age

and we just work until we die where we stand.

These pukes should make their motto 'Arbeit Mach Frei', it seems to suit them.

I also think that Social Security would be just fine if they would keep their damn hands off it, instead of cyphering off of it.

[Nossida]

127. Ok If

As long as the Good Senators reduce their own retirement age to 55.
And think of how much could be accomplished if there were a 2 Term
Limit in the Senate ? 4 Terms in the House. And for Life. And no
Lifetime Health Insurance for any of them. They are elected officials,
not Nobility.

Utopian notions I admit.

[Kingofalldems]

130. This is what the GOP is up to. Never trust a republican