Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Justin Satzman
302 Followers
I think I am upnorthgirl
1610 Followers
I think I am upnorthgirl
1610 Followers
Columbine Phoenix
1283 Followers
Columbine Phoenix
1283 Followers
The Amplifier
7745 Followers
Adam Johnson
63 Followers
Adam Johnson
63 Followers
Phil Perspective
9369 Followers
Phil Perspective
9369 Followers
footbag01Jun 29, 2010
I give him until this evening before he starts walking back that comment. But I'd have no problem with a Republican proposing it.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
How do you not get that he is a republican?
Did you forget an /s tag or something?
ldkronosJun 30, 2010
I think he got it just fine. What you probably missed is that what is in this article was merely the senator's opinions voiced in an interview. When footbag01 said "a Republican proposing it", I think he meant that if such a bill ever gets proposed in the senate, he wouldn't have a problem with a republican being the one to do it.
bobothedorkboyJun 29, 2010
f**k him.
nickymouseJun 30, 2010
Your smart. You should work in politics.
tukaJun 30, 2010
if only half the tards in this country were smart enough to come to the same conclusion we'd all be on a better track.
PS, f**k em all. Vote for results and logic, not brand loyalty and fashionable political leanings. Morons.
vladiggerputinJun 30, 2010
YOU'RE not.
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
What does his smart do?
zomgondoJun 30, 2010
Unfortunately I think he'd rather like that.
morginoJun 30, 2010
Yeah cause if we continue along the path we are on everyone is still going to recieve ss in 20 years. It is UNSUSTAINABLE. Do you have a better option? Raise taxes...again..so we can pay 60%. People used to die at 60 when this was created, the average age is now 82. It will soon be 100. So...rather than trying to be cute why don't you come up with a better option
zenmojoJun 30, 2010
Average life expectancy is 78. You must be thinking of a country with actual healthcare, like Costa Rica. :)
That said, your point is valid. However, for more than 50 years in the 20th century the highest marginal tax rate was 70-80% for the very wealthiest Americans. Now it's 35%.
Just think about it. When your parent's parent's parents and your parent's parents and your parents were babies all the way through to when most of us were born the highest marginal tax rate was more than TWICE what it is now. Coincidentally, the vast majority of us has never been alive when our government had a deficit even 1/8th what it is now.
You can't even CONCEIVE of a world where this is true. Your mind is probably exploding at the thought. Hell, you are right now apoplectic and about to give an angry, railing virtue-based response about fiscal responsibility when the truth is the richest people in the world pay s**t all in taxes and have convinced you that they are paying their fair share.
Go ahead. Scream all you want, but the fact remains that there was a world less than 30 years ago right where you stand where the richest people in the country paid 200% more in taxes than they do now and we were running a surplus and the dollar was strong.
Like I said. Think about it.
flip2tripJun 30, 2010
"However, for more than 50 years in the 20th century the highest marginal tax rate was 70-80% for the very wealthiest Americans."
In 1900 no one paid income taxes, what's your point?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xophermvJun 30, 2010
Social Security can continue to pay out for the next 30 years with no significant decrease in payments to seniors. This idea that the program is unsustainable is a conservative talking point which is not grounded in reality or truth. It is an outright lie.
morginoJun 30, 2010
A conservative talking point xopher? I guess Obama is a conservative, even he said it is unsustainable. And to the Zen fella....yeah tax the f**k out of the rich...great idea. The top 1% of earners pay 50% of the taxes....but yeah f**k them. Tax them more
rokusi666Jul 9, 2010
damnit Morgino, you broke even. your first statement deserves a digg, but your second statement deserves a bury.
orlandogeekJun 30, 2010
Get the government to stop using Social Security as a slush fund for military adventurism, etc and the program would be solvent.
Why is it that people fail to grasp that every other developed country in the world has a solid government safety net for it's citizens and they are not being bankrupted? It's because those other countries don't have troops in half the countries in the f**king world fighting "wars" and non-existent battles.
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
Its too late.... Social Security is bankrupt, and now there's not enough people paying in to support those drawing down.
Its over... the only sane thing to do is end social security after all those currently drawing are dead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scottcJun 30, 2010
Bankrupt? This is its *first* year running at a deficit. That's not even close to bankrupt. It will only fail if Congress lets it fail, and that's not likely unless the Republicans find a way to get the majority back and hold it for a few years.
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
@scottc
If spend more than you make every year for every year except for 2 in the last 60 years... you're bankrupt!
scottcJun 30, 2010
Are you confusing the entire budget with Social Security?!
leadoffmanJun 30, 2010
Solid safety net? Like Greece? Spain? The problem with your "solid government safety net" is that it is ALWAYS unsustainable.
Socialism always fails, because you eventually run out of other people's money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pmkenny1234Jun 30, 2010
"If spend more than you make every year for every year except for 2 in the last 60 years... you're bankrupt!"
No. If you spent more than you have AND you're unable to meet the payments on your debts you're bankrupt. Almost every home owner in this country has spent more than they made at some point. It's called a mortgage and it's not equated with bankruptcy either.
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
So you want to mortgage your future on the backs of your children?
orlandogeekJun 30, 2010
Greece's problem is the same thing that almost killed the US economy. Bankers playing fast and loose with extremely risky investments, NOT government social programs.
pmkenny1234Jun 30, 2010
@thcobbs - Way to miss the point and mix mortgaging of a house (a sound investment in the long term) with some crappy talking point about about SS.
My only point was that bankruptcy is absolutely the wrong word here. We're talking about a year in the red. That's NOT bankruptcy. It's not even remotely the same thing. Of course, you can't function in the red forever, but a year in the red is not the end of the road. =P
udjetJun 30, 2010
For at least the last 20 years I've been told not to expect social security compensation, so I don't look for that payment when I get older. I make a savings now and if I get ss, I'll look at it as a bonus, not as a requirement to survive during old age.
armageddon2012Jun 30, 2010
f**k the Ponzi scheme.
boner79Jun 30, 2010
in the ear
absurdistJul 1, 2010
1: Remove the cap on taxable SS income. Period. No deductions or loopholes. Problem of sustainability solved, forever.
2: Reset income and corporate taxation levels to what they were from Truman to Reagan, the longest period of sustained growth of the middle class the country has ever seen.
3: Eliminate corporate lobbying.
4: Profit.
trolleyfanJun 29, 2010
As long as the "ant" is one of "Them," then go right ahead...
...it was that, or flamethrowers in the sewers...
christmaspooJun 29, 2010
The GOP wants to pull the plug on grandma?
blackjackjesterJun 30, 2010
Social Security is already a horrible system in which the government benefits from the death of citizens. This is just the next logical step to "we're taking 5% more of your paycheck and you're never seeing it again".
If it were privatized then not only would the government not benefit from dieing citizens, but their families would grow in wealth, which would certainly help lower class citizens, by keeping money in the family.
Then you just have to hope people don't start murdering their parents for the SS money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
weswoodJun 30, 2010
I see by your post that you're unfamiliar with the concept of annuities.
Let me help. Annuities are essentially an existing private alternative to Social Security, and provide guaranteed retirement payments for life backed by insurance companies, who remain profitable because they know most people will die before they collect what they paid in. Annuities are basically a solvent form of Social Security, so I'm not sure what your point is.
orlandogeekJun 30, 2010
Until the market crashes again because of rampant deregulation and gamesmanship that torpedoed the whole economy for nearly a decade in 1929 and almost did the same thing again in 2008. What happens to your privatized retirement account then?
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
@weswood
Umm... you just described the founding principle of SS... unfortunately, the Government isn't willing to raise the retirement age to keep itself solvent.
@orlandogeek
It's called diversification.... stocks, bonds, precious metals, and savings.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
orlandogeekJun 30, 2010
@thcobbs - All of those items were hit hard in both major market collapses. No private investment format is safe from a catastrophic market drop. Invest in foreign currency & the dollar goes down, you still lose money. Invest in gold and the dollar goes down, you still lose money. Invest in stocks and bonds and the economy collapses and you still lose money, ad infinitum
weswoodJun 30, 2010
@thcobb - I'd love to debate or argue, but I'm not sure where we disagree. SS is public and annuities are private. Both need to pay out less than is being paid in i.e. they both count on people dying in order to remain solvent. I just can't figure out why blackjackjester thinks it would be better for a private company to profit from something like annuities rather than the government having extra money paid into the SS fund.
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
@BlackJackJester: Like weswood said, the system would be no different, except for the fact that the private companies, given that their primary goal would be to profit, would be actively seeking ways to f**k people out of their money, much like our current health care system.
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
@orlandogeek
Actually, precious metals skyrocketed.... Bonds you're guaranteed a return when you buy them.
Only thing that lost money was stocks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
arkwaldJun 30, 2010
@thcobbs You'll see a lot of people loose money when precious metals drop. The problem is that there is no money to be made in a stable commodity. Once someone gets the idea they can make a ton of money by investing in something else it's going to start gold to tumble down to half of what it currently is. Meaning unless your at the head of that fall your looking at loosing a good chunk of your investment. Remember there is nothing intrinsically valuable about anything other then what value people believe it has.
armageddon2012Jun 30, 2010
Evil Republican, trying to save the Ponzi scheme the Democrats started.
It's not like the whole scam is running headlong into bankruptcy or anything. Nope, everything is fine with Social Security, just evil Republicans trying to pull the plug on grandma, that's all.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aquileriaJun 30, 2010
The republicans are also trying to jack up premiums for retired military veterans too, but I guess that's just fine and dandy too, right
beratebirthersJun 30, 2010
Obama should be repeating this every day until November.
"Remember that the GOP supports BP, handing guns to criminals and forcing you to work until your 70 without healthcare so they can bailout Wall Street again"
armageddon2012Jun 30, 2010
Obama should be campaigning for every Democrat until November. His track record is awesome.
beratebirthersJun 30, 2010
NY-23, baby! First Democrat since the Civil War! Not even 6% for the GOP! Eat that teabaggers, you lost! That's the key to November.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district_special_election,_2009
leadoffmanJun 30, 2010
I hope he does. It will be a Republican rout in November.
BTW - who collected the most $$ from BP? That's right, obama. I don't think he'll be saying squat about who "likes" BP.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digg2point0Jun 30, 2010
"BTW - who collected the most $$ from BP? That's right, obama."
Keep tellin that lie... maybe someone will believe you.
Obama received over $71,000 from INDIVIDUAL BP WORKERS, not BP itself (PAC money). Obama also received more contributions (from individuals) than any other presidential candidate I can think of.
Drill baby, drill!
http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainoil
s73v3rJun 30, 2010
@LeadOffMan: I'm going to start reporting people for perpetuating that lie. Seriously. You people may have other things to attack Obama on, some of which may actually be truthful.
smackattack42Jun 30, 2010
AWKWARD BO(eh)NER
fallfromgraceJun 30, 2010
"AHHHHHH THEY'RE KILLING GRANDMA."
Do you even know what retirement is?
nannyreeJun 29, 2010
Hey Boner, let's just do away with retirement all together, just keep on working until you drop dead on the job!
rudeturnipJun 30, 2010
If I could put my social security payments into my 401(k), I'd have no problem retiring at 60-something. I've come to accept that my generation (X) is going to be f**ked. The Baby Boomers will be the last ones to receive social security; I'll pay for it and will get nothing in return. That will be my generation's sacrifice to the next one.
aquileriaJun 30, 2010
well you got the dot com boom and 20 years of decent job markets, so bugger off!
bluto36Jun 30, 2010
oh the dot com boom? the one where the baby boomers should have retired but couldn't because of all their debt and stayed in their jobs way longer then they should have keeping positions stagnant until the bust where the gen X'ers got fired and the boomers kept there jobs?
ya thanks...
dont worry we will keep paying the SS for you and thanks for s**tting on the country boomers... worst generation ever.
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
That was the original idea behind social security, Nimrod. He's actually keeping the retirement age 8--12 years under the current life expectancy of US citizens.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rJun 30, 2010
Life expectancy and average age are two different things. Life expectancy can be skewed by a high infant mortality rate, which the US had when the Social Security retirement ages were established.
armageddon2012Jun 30, 2010
Yep, everythings a-ok with Social Security. It's not as if every politician in D.C. is aware something must be done to keep it afloat . . . oh wait.
randyzaiaJun 30, 2010
"Hey Boner, let's just do away with retirement all together"
Sounds good to me - why should the government have any role in retirement anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boner79Jun 30, 2010
Hey leave me out of this.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Those lazy bastards who want to retire at 65 are as bad as those bums on welfare who cant seem to get jobs.
/s
hipmanJun 30, 2010
./s?.No, those bums on welfare are bad.
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
btw, when social security was passed, the average life expectancy of US citizens was 61.... you were expected to die before you could collect....
* The more you know
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Hmm, so how can we get old people to die earlier???
I know, obstruct health care reform!
BRILLIANT!
/s
tcugrillaJun 30, 2010
You think that this monstrosity of so called health care reform will help people live longer? You live on what planet?
s73v3rJun 30, 2010
And when Social Security was passed, the US had a much higher infant mortality rate, thus skewing the average life expectancy.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
People who are shut out of healthcare will actually live longer on your planet?
Is this some sort of wacky scientology thing?
randyzaiaJun 30, 2010
How about the lazy government workers who retire at 50?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Yep, everyone is lazy, except for them hard working teabaggers.
Oh, wait, it turns out that 50% of the teabaggers are unemployed...
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
and which ones would that be? I'm a government worker and I've yet in ten years seen or know of anyone who has retired at under 60.....
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Remove the salary cap. Right now, once a person hits $106,800 for the year, social security is no longer taken out of check. If that cap was removed, it would save the fund.
vbgamer45Jun 30, 2010
Agreed there should be no cap
irvman21Jun 30, 2010
f**k you. I pay enough already and by the time I get to retirement they'll have likely made it need based and I won't get s**t for 100k plus I've already contributed. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
Social security doesn't work on a "you get back what you put in" principle anyway.
irvman21Jun 30, 2010
No s**t. That's exactly why removing the cap is bulls**t.
crazedchemistJun 30, 2010
Life must suck for you. Maybe you should make less money, that way you will pay less taxes, then life will be better.
orlandogeekJun 30, 2010
Your Social Security payments come from what your generation's children are paying in from their wages. What you pay in while you are working goes to pay for your parents Social Security.
Hell, leaving the cap, but moving it up to allow the Social Security tax to be applied to income up to $500k would likely be enough!
lormendiJun 30, 2010
Cry more?
medallionsJun 30, 2010
Work harder!! Millions on unemployment are depending on you!!
hipmanJun 30, 2010
That doesn't make sense.They're not the ones who are going to need it, that's why they're not paying in.
blueplanetJun 30, 2010
it's not a savings fund....
darkmatter911Jun 30, 2010
If that is your logic. I have made my own plans for reteriment and will not need social security. Please exempt me from having to contribute.
hipmanJun 30, 2010
Good for you darkmatter.No complaints here.
brsox2445Jun 30, 2010
If people who are making more than that get it then they should contribute.
If people who make more than that, especially even after retirement, do not get SS then they shouldnt be taxed now. But if they do get it then they should pay into it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jrlucasJun 30, 2010
Isn't it ridiculous that if you're not filthy rich, they force you to "save" the money you need so that you "have it for later." Except by "save" they mean "loan" and by "have it for later" they mean "oops we spent it."
But, if you make enough money to make a difference to the system, your money is safe.
spartan777Jun 30, 2010
Everyone gets paid Social Security, it doesn't get "accidentally spent." Other parts of the government budget might be messed up, but SS is in relatively great shape.
hobofatsJun 30, 2010
@spartan777 you are partly right. everyone who is currently on social security is getting paid. However, in the future there will be so many people on it that the working people won't be paying in fast enough to support them. under our current system, by the time you and I retire there won't be enough money to go around. eliminating the cap would help the system.
amyndrisJun 30, 2010
The reason there is a cap on how much you pay in is because there is a cap on how much you get paid out. If there's no cap on how much you pay in, then there should be no cap on how much you get out after you retire.
beratebirthersJun 30, 2010
Bulls**t. Remove the cap, take the money from the rich and give it to poor seniors who can use it now. It helps the poor, keeps the fund solvent and is more stimulus for the economy. It's WIN-WIN-WIN.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
bulls**t, I've already reached my 'payout' cap at the age of 38, why am I still paying into it then?
peeequalsnpJun 30, 2010
@BerateBirthers
Were you forgetting the /s? When in this countries history has been considered right to take someone's property simply to give it to someone else? One's money that they've worked for, is essentially their property. Are you going to support some sort of eminent domain on people's earnings?
The entitlement programs are there as a moral component of our society that we generally believe it is right to support the poor and elderly. I agree with the existence of most of these programs although I disagree with how they are setup. But there is no where in our laws (nor should it be) where it would allow taking people's money and giving it to others that need it more.
Why not reform social security to more of a "get out what you put in" kind of deal. Like a forced savings plan. Encourages employment instead of entitlement. Subsidize partial payments for those who have an income below the poverty level and put health care, etc. into the calculation of the poverty level.
I know it sounds cliche, but we need to start teaching people to fish instead of giving them fish all the time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vociferunbannedJun 30, 2010
Agreed. f**k YOU. You want to steal other people's hard earned money? A lot of people spend years in school and work their asses off to be able to make more money. Let people keep what they make. If you want to help people, then donate your own money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
Buried for implying that those that don't make a lot of money do not work hard for what they get.
darkmatter911Jun 30, 2010
So what you are saying is if you are not going to need any social security money you do not have to contribute? Works great for me. Please exempt all of my earnings not just those above the limit.
vociferunbannedJun 30, 2010
jamsaree: Nice strawman. s.s. pays out to retired people, so yes, they are not working as hard as those who are still f**king working. Everyone deserves to keep what they make. Removing the cap on those who make more is not fair if they get nothing back in return.
darkmatter: Nice strawman also. Nobody would be exempt from how s.s. is now. Everyone pays the same % and gets the same % back. Raising the cap only punishes those who make more and they get nothing back for it. It is wealth redistribution to the teeth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vociferunbannedJun 30, 2010
Digg me down and run away, leeches, since you can only run to your ratholes in disgust of your own pathetic lives.
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
Vocifer: If you truly believe that everyone should keep their hard earned money, then advocate for the end of Social Security for everyone, not just for wealthy people. Otherwise you're not making sense. Besides, I wasn't even arguing against that. I just hate the holier-than-thou "people are poor because they're ignorant and don't work hard" attitude reflected by your comment.
csmassJun 30, 2010
You are an idiot vocifer. Social Security benefits everyone even if you don't draw from it. Think of it this way asshat, if you take away SS and other social programs the likelihood of you getting shot dead and robbed increases substantially. Retard. Grow up you selfish prick.
vociferunbannedJun 30, 2010
lol at people arguing against s**t I'm not even saying. csmass, go f**k yourself. Where does it say I'm arguing against s.s as it is now? Besides, I'm not afraid of 75 year olds trying to rob me. NIC STRAWMEN EVERYONE, LEARN HOW TO f**kING DEBATE PEOPLE LDO.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
@vocifer... Ya know, I don't really having a problem with cussing, being Ex-Navy myself... but if you are going to put forth a debate, try using some intelligent language. Your choice of words make you appear to be a backwoods inbred numbnut with a mullet.
vociferunbannedJun 30, 2010
shulkman, your proposal infuriates me and deserves such harsh words. The cussing is more of pulling my hair out at the other people who replied. Thanks for your military service, no disrespect intended.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aquileriaJun 30, 2010
People on digg don't have debates, they posture and politicize everything from iphones to mark shuttleworth to lolcats.
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
@Vocifer: Some of us poor people have worked f**king hard, you ignorant man-child.
nomadofthehillsJun 30, 2010
I don't think you know what a strawman is.
falstaffJun 30, 2010
It's always been billed as "SSI," the "I" standing for insurance, because the benefits are also capped, the payments are proportional to the deductions.
If you remove the cap (or at least make it a soft cap), it becomes a system where some people will never see as much out of it as they put in. It's not the worst idea in the world, but politically very difficult. It would be one of the largest tax increases (since everybody would finally have to admit that's what it is), and nobody wants to do that.
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
"it becomes a system where some people will never see as much out of it as they put in."
Most people see about 35% of what they put in and yet somehow it's constantly going bankrupt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fordsvt1Jun 30, 2010
Except it's not "constantly going bankrupt", and I don't think you even know what you mean when you type that.
jrlucasJul 1, 2010
yea, but it's still SSI Tax, and as a tax, you could say the same about a slew of others. for example, some people are not seeing as much as they put in when it comes to public water, mass transit, housing subsidies, food assistance, and public education, to name a few. and yet, they're taxed all the same. that's why its a tax.
the worse problem is that a lot of SSI goes to social welfare programs, and since 5% of the bottom wealth pay for 20% of SSI taxes, you have a program thats backwards in the way in the way it provides for itself. I mean, how are you going to bring funding to the poor when you tax them for it first.
this funding wouldnt even have to happen if the top 1% of the population didn't own such a disproportionate amount of the wealth (not because they didn't 'earn it', but because the result wouldn't be the same if they enacted fair wages to begin with)
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
Ummm... BS! You are taxed at 2.5% of your income up to that amount. And you only get up to 120% of what you contribute.
mbraynardJun 30, 2010
But the amount you get out of Social security is tied to the amount you pay in, so raising the cap would also raise the obligation of the fund to pay out later.
BTW - great idea to raise taxes in a depression. You must be an Obama advisor. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lormendiJun 30, 2010
Yeah, thats nowhere as intelligent as tax cuts during a war.
Moron.
uselesstriviaJun 30, 2010
Not quite accurate: I think what you meant to say was that once they hit that limit no ADDITIONAL money is taken out. If you make a million dollars a year you still contribute to social security, you just contribute the same amount as a guy who makes $106,000.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
Get rid of the cap and also allow people to opt out, forfeiting all the money they put in (I would absolutely do that). Also, don't allow them to spend it now: any money put in today can only be used as SS payouts today.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
All except the fact that social security was never meant to pay for bulls**t like wars, etc... It was meant for social security.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
... said the guy who isn't making enough to reach the cap.
Quit trying to fix things by throwing other people's money at it. SS is going broke because of mismanagement of funds and raiding them to pay for other projects.
SS is a crap idea. For a fraction of the cost you could have a major on-going education campaign and incentives for developing individual and company retirement pools.
Yes there should be some kind of social safety net for those who are mentally/physically incapable but the average American worker should be given a big market for retirement savings and investment - not strong-armed into a ponzi scheme.
kidviciousJun 30, 2010
I think acting like an idiot in congress should be called "pulling a Boehner."
davidtcJun 30, 2010
"popping a Boehner" would sound better.
co7926Jun 30, 2010
Richard's being a big, fat Boehner today >:|
battlechimpJun 30, 2010
Everyone loves busting senator Boehner's nuts.
magus_melchiorJun 30, 2010
Close. It's "being Republican".
citizenmeJun 30, 2010
I've been trying to use the terms like: I really "bushed" up this time.
and
Don't "beck out" on me.
moxleyJun 30, 2010
Let's just kill every politician and start over.
/s.
xdarkfluxxJun 30, 2010
Why the sarcasm? I say lets do it.
Who's with me?
moxleyJun 30, 2010
Sarcasm? I though adding that "s" means "hey guys I'm really serious" ....cuz I am.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
That plan worked well for the French in the French Revolution when the original political leaders imposed term limits on themselves.
brynlbJun 30, 2010
Buried for the /s.
lormendiJun 30, 2010
Ok, but what guarantee do we have that the new ones will be better? I'm for it if we can figure out how not to get back into this mess again.
Throw ALL lobbyists OUT of DC, and institute publicly funded campaigns. No more donations from Company X.
davenp0rtJun 30, 2010
Good luck convincing the people that benefit from that s**t. Politicians don't care what their constituents want, they care about how to keep their corporate sponsorships alive.
lormendiJun 30, 2010
Aye, the politicians as they are now would never go for it. But, if there were a purge of sorts....we should sneak these provisions in there.
dvazgirdJun 30, 2010
Why not everyone pitch $5 and sponsor our own politician, we can lobby out own policies that way. Oh wait... no media exposure.
taxmoreJun 30, 2010
Or just get rid of social security since it's a welfare ponzi scheme to begin with.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
According to your profile, you are 63 years old. I assume by your comment you won't be looking to claim any social security, right?
aliengoodsJun 30, 2010
According to his profile, it will be a different story in 2 years.
puterJun 30, 2010
If he paid taxes to support it then he should claim it.
It's perfectly legitimate for him to say it should be ended but still claim it since he had to pay into it and that would be the only way to get his money back.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
csstudentJun 30, 2010
The government has stolen money from my paycheck for 25 years to pay for these ponzi schemse. You better believe that I'll be collecting every cent they owe me when I retire. It would only be hypocritical of me if I was given an option to participate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hillsfarJun 30, 2010
He paid money into it, but it never grows to where he'll take out less than what he puts in.
The first person on Social Security put in about $120, took out $23,000 over her lifetime (this was back when the program first started).
This system depends on the younger workers paying for the older workers. It was set up because workers didn't save for retirement.
We're more socialist than China. China has no Social Security or Medicare system. That's why their savings rate is 30%.
nakedjediJun 30, 2010
Agreed. It's illegal for me to run a pyramid scam but the government can do it.
rentalcanoeJun 30, 2010
Exactly. Better to have elderly Americans starving.
/idiot
mkriss5681Jun 30, 2010
I don't care what they say. His name is pronounced Bonner,
portnoyJun 30, 2010
I guess that means he likes to "Bonn" the working class.
gizram84Jun 30, 2010
It's actually pronounces Bay-ner
premiumballinJun 30, 2010
I thought everyone agreed the Social Security age should be raised. Modern medicine and lifestyle habits have prolonged lives and minds, so many people can work comfortably until they're 70, or even older. Fun fact: when Social Security was initially implemented, penicillin had only been around for seven years. Doesn't it only make sense to raise the retirement age?
(But everything else Boehner says is crap.)
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Thanks for being honest. I've seen liberals on Digg saying that 65 is too young to retire and get SS for awhile now.
Boehner says it and he's the anti-Christ?
affectJun 30, 2010
No, his justification is so we can continue to throw money at a failing war. We have no reason to be there. We started based on the lies of our former commander.
If you have to f**k with social programs to pay for war, holy s**t. You're already spending more on war than any other program. Why enrich America when we can just keep building and dropping bombs?
12 BILLION a month? That sounds great when our economy is failing right before our eyes.
ageofmasteryJun 30, 2010
I love the examples you cite. Oh wait, as usual you offer no proof to back up your lies
affectJun 30, 2010
It's because most of this is common knowledge. Here are some references for you. "U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined."
We definitely must be doing it right. Spend more than #2-#15 combined?
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://costofwar.com/
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes
ageofmasteryJun 30, 2010
@Affect
That was meant for quirkopatra not you. I should have refreshed before I posted, I actually agree with you
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Age - come on! You have seen it on Digg. You know. You know liberals have said that the age of retirement is too low. Other people are mentioning it in this comment section!
Don't be disingenuous in order to come after me for pointing it out.
Affect isn't worth commenting to. He said we should bomb Israel the other night.
affectJun 30, 2010
She is pathetically sad. Just another fool who only repeats what she hears on the daily propaganda channel. She is incapable of free thought.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
...as I said Age...Affect isn't worth responding to.
It's like liberals have never said
-we should divide up the USA between conservative and liberal
they have never said
-we should have a test before people can vote.
they have never said
-religious parents are engaged in child abuse when they raise their kids in the faith....
Liberals have said the retirement age should be raised....
You are being ignorant and deliberately spiteful if you deny it.
(Again...Affect isn't worth responding to. Check out the comment history.....)
seriouzbidnezzJun 30, 2010
Single in your 40's? s**t. I'd be a hater too.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Who said I was single?
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
"12 BILLION a month? That sounds great when our economy is failing right before our eyes."
So, $1.44 Trillion is worse than the current estimate of $1.5 Trillion of deficit spending from obama?
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
@quirkopatra: So, no examples? You say there are some in this very thread (I haven't seen them, and I've read every comment up to this one so far), but you can't provide a single one. As per usual, you're just talking out your ass.
And before you come in with calling me racist and misquoting me, I'll say again that I never said that black people shouldn't be conservatives, just that they shouldn't be members of the party whose heroes have lamented the idea of them getting any power and undermining the "white Christian male power structure" (Bill O'Reilly and John McCain) and said that black people don't matter because we're only twelve percent of the population and told a black caller to remove the bone from her nose (Rush Limbaugh).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
DDR
"I think Boehner is an idiot, but I don't understand why suggesting we raise the retirement age up to 70 is such a bad idea. Study after study has shown that the more engaged and active elderly people are the better they do. Also I think it is becoming obvious that social security checks at 65, while ideal, are not sustainable. Listen, we tried to do this for our society, and it is simply unsustainable because of our demographics. We need to start looking at other options."
It's on the thread, really...
DDR
"And before you come in with calling me racist and misquoting me, I'll say again that I never said that black people shouldn't be conservatives, just that they shouldn't be members of the party whose heroes have lamented the idea of them getting any power and undermining the "white Christian male power structure" (Bill O'Reilly and John McCain) and said that black people don't matter because we're only twelve percent of the population and told a black caller to remove the bone from her nose (Rush Limbaugh)."
I would never call you a racist. You are black ... and you MIGHT BE a racist ... but I am white so I wouldn't call you one.
You have said that all black Republicans are Uncle Toms. You have. You have said it ... you KNOW you have said it ... or you wouldn't bother coming on a thread about social security and retirement and bringing it up.
It's a shame you don't want your fellow African-Americans to think for themselves and decide whether or not they wish to be Republicans. There's nothing in a person's skin color that says they have to favor the liberal agenda.
By the way. O'Reilly and Limbaugh are hosts of opinion shows. If you want to talk to someone about the Republican philosophy...there's Michael Steele ... and *I* recommend Kevin Jackson.
Again ... in short ... there's no reason the black man or woman cannot decide to be a political conservative or support the Republican party. We were the ones who fought for civil rights.
jake1337Jun 30, 2010
You DO realize we liberals aren't all one person, right? We have conflicting views...
skittlesusaJun 30, 2010
http://costofwar.com/
So basically, Obama almost exceeded the cost of both these wars with 1 piece of legislation that was rushed through Congress (the stimulus package), and completely failed to have the intended effect?
Jake1337,
Thank you for illustrating why liberalism can, in 1 failed bill, exceed the cost of 10 years of 2 wars.
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
@quirk: If it's in this thread, you don't have to go far to find me a link.
You would never call me a racist, huh? How about a week and a half ago, when you said, "This isn't DDR's first racist Digg comment." And that wasn't your first time accusing me of being racist. And unlike you, I'll provide a source. http://digg.com/political_opinion/Sarah_Palin_Picks_Another_Loser_Star_Parker?t=33383657#c33395258
And still, in spite of me having explained my position to you no less than half a dozen times, you still accuse me of things that I have outright said I don't believe. I never, NEVER said that black people have to be liberal, or even that they're not allowed to be Republican. I have no say over what others do. Black conservatives may have a different viewpoint than me, but they're entitled to it. I simply think that black conservatives should choose or form a party that doesn't vocally hate them (except for Michael Steele, who said he'd use fried chicken and watermelon to lure black people to the GOP, which is something you'd expect to hear from an ignorant Southerner, not a black "party leader").
Hell, I'll even repost my response to you in that thread, to which you never responded, likely because you know you're dead-ass wrong:
"
You've accused me of this before. I have said that you're wrong. Either you intentionally don't read my replies because they don't suit your narrative or you're actually dumb as rocks.
Like I said in the very post you are replying to, and I quote, "Black conservatives are one thing; though I disagree with their views, they're perfectly entitled to them. Black GOP apologists who suck up to their white peers and disparage their own race for acceptance are a different thing entirely."
The GOP is a party whose policies since at least the late 1960s have negatively affected black people in general. They're the party whose heroes include Reagan (who opposed the Civil Rights Act, particularly on the grounds of it being "embarrassing to the south" which shows his true priorities, and the creation of MLK Jr. Day), Rush Limbaugh (who called for the return of segregated buses, said that black people don't matter because we're twelve percent of the population, told a black caller to "take the bone out of [her] nose," etc.), Bill O'Reilly (who was surprised to find that the black patrons of a Harlem restaurant weren't yelling at waiters and blasting music from boomboxes while playing craps and who lamented the potential end of the white Christian male power structure during the election, not to mention calling people who don't unconditionally support the white Christian male power structure "loons"), etc. And their token black leader, Michael Steele, supports these clowns even when they make racist comments, and even responded to a racist comment made by an audience member at an event by agreeing that he should use fried chicken and collard greens to lure black people into the GOP.
Black conservatives have a valid viewpoint, much as I may personally disagree. But they should find a party that doesn't clearly despise them."
avengingturnipJun 30, 2010
Anyone born after 1960 is already facing a retirement age of 67.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirement/1960.html
Why is everyone assuming that they will retire at 65?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
"This isn't DDR's first racist Digg comment."
You made a racist comment. I don't know what's in your heart. Calling black people Uncle Toms because they choose to be Republican is a racist comment.
ddrskataJul 1, 2010
It was probably deleted to appease all of you butthurt neocons who reported it. Note that I was not disciplined or banned.
And I explained exactly what I was saying, yet you keep accusing me of saying something different. You're clearly either illiterate or incapable of debating the facts, and either way, there's no way you'll pay attention to what I'm actually saying, so you can just go f**k yourself.
vociferunbannedJun 30, 2010
OMG THERE'S AN R NEXT TO HIS NAME, EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS POISON!
affectJun 30, 2010
No. This is based only on the WORDS that came from his mouth.
premiumballinJun 30, 2010
I just don't like deliberate misinformation. I hold certain conservative views, but I've been completely disenfranchised by the party's actions. There are in fact many Republicans I like. Perhaps I would even like Boehner if he didn't have to speak for the GOP.
cajungalJun 30, 2010
That is sort of the problem with these labels. They sometimes can blind us to the actual principles, values, and actions of a person—for some people it is very hard to look beyond the D or the R and see what really lies beneath.
puterJun 30, 2010
The average life expectancy in the US is 78 years.
Do you really think people should be required to work until they are 70 (and pay money into the stupid taxes) only to be able to enjoy it for 8 years?
hipmanJun 30, 2010
Do you think money grows on trees?.
puterJun 30, 2010
I can pretty much guarantee that if I were to pay into the fund for that many years that I would use less of the money than I paid into it.
Also, it's basically just forced savings. My opinion is that there shouldn't be a fund at all and people should just be responsible enough to live within their means and save their money for retirement.
ljseinfeldJun 30, 2010
What was the life expectancy when Social Security was first implemented?
hipmanJun 30, 2010
I thought you were defending it.
prosequiJun 30, 2010
Retirement is a modern invention - it did not exist 100 years ago in any way that would be recognized today. It was popularized from 1900 onwards, all the while modified for their benefit of the retirees and now run it into the ground.
Cite: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/short.retirement.history.us
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
You do realize that, when social security was implemented, the average life expectancy in the US was at best, three years LESS than the retirement age?
akairennJun 30, 2010
"Who's going to pay for your early retirement?."
I am, you fool. It's laughable to even *dream* of retiring if all you have is the pittance that social security grants.
Whatever. Raise the age all you want - just give me the option to opt the hell out of this scam. Sorry, I'm far more capable at managing my assets and planning for the future than the government - you know, the guys with the several trillion worth of debt? - is.
premiumballinJun 30, 2010
In 1935, when Social Security was implemented for persons over the age of 65, the average life expectancy was 61.7 years.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
People should choose careers they enjoy or at the very least tolerate. Taxes for Social Security will be decreased if there are less people using the program at any given time, so that's a non-issue. Perhaps the issue is that the United States, for the most part, has less vacation time and more weekday hours than other developed nations? But that isn't for me to judge.
premiumballinJun 30, 2010
@puter
The problem with that view is that many people simply can't save. The pooling of money allows the government to direct some savings away from the wealthy and towards the poor. It's a rather socialist idea, but it's humane and reasonable; you probably don't want the extremely elderly or feeble (not that everyone over 65 is such) in the workforce, preventing a younger generation from finding work while working themselves, literally, into the ground.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
@Prosequi: Labor laws were a lot different back then. Child labor was commonplace. The forty-hour work week didn't exist. Minimum wage didn't exist. We implemented the things we did because things were really f**king s**tty back then. It's unwise to compare our current situation to the turn of last century.
gregloireJun 30, 2010
Life expectancy is a misleading statistic because it's basically the average life expectancy FROM BIRTH. The longer you manage to stay alive, the longer your life expectancy is, since you've already lived through a period where you could have potentially died. During the middle ages, life expectancy was extremely short mostly due to high child mortality rates, not because someone in his 30s had an unusually difficult time staying alive.
Once you've stayed alive to the age of 70, your life expectancy from that point on is higher than it was at birth. And it will continue to be higher for every year that you stay alive. If you hit 78, you are not "expected" to die that year. The average 78-year-old probably lives for about 5-10 more years (pulling this number out of nowhere, just as an example), which would make your life expectancy into the 80s once you're 78.
So once you hit 70, no, you're not expected to die in 8 years. You will probably live longer, to counter-balance for the people who already died sooner, in making up the 78-year average.
cajungalJun 30, 2010
Perhaps the eligibility for Social Security should be based upon something other than age, how about ability, or rather lack there of. It was set up to be a safety net; Social Security was never supposed to be your sole support for 30 or 40 years of your life! When Social Security was implemented, the age to receive it was past the life expectancy age, in other words, very few people were ever really supposed to draw the money out! If the government insists upon using an arbitrary age for retirement then it should be coupled to the life expectancy age and if it goes up, so should the retirement age—just as if it were to go down, it should also come back down (which may be a very real possibility with Obamacare rationing.) Something is going to have to give because the only thing left in the lock box is a bunch of IOU’s that are going to be impossible to pay without inflating our dollar into worthlessness. I am not trying to sound cruel here, but we must consider what we are doing to the next generation. When the Social Security system was set up there were 16 workers for each retiree but in the very near when the baby boomers retire it will be down to 2 workers for every retiree—this will be nothing less than theft because the amount of money that will be required of them to care for the huge baby boomer generation will leave them with nothing to live on for themselves and their children.
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
Geroge W. Bush proposed a progressive price index that would raise the beneift for lower-income people and drastically reduce it for high wage earners.... Projections showed it would close 70-75% of the SS deficit through 2075.... What happened?
"BOOO! BAD W! You can't touch my social security!"
aquileriaJun 30, 2010
No, Bush was trying to privatize social security
cajungalJun 30, 2010
Bush was trying to allow the young, up-and-coming generation control over a small percentage of their Social Security dollars so that there would still be something left for them when the time came for them to retire. But that third rail was too hot to handle and he had to drop the discussion and kick the can down the road; so, now we find ourselves in quite a pickle. We are running out of time and out of options and the longer we wait to fix it the more difficult it will become.
venom8599Jun 30, 2010
@cajungal
Social Security is currently projected to remain solvent for the next 30 years with no reforms. We dodged a bullet in avoiding the privatization of portions of the fund--imagine what would've happened with privatized Social Security during the economic crisis.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ramfire98Jun 30, 2010
"Social Security is currently projected to remain solvent for the next 30 years with no reforms."
Bulls**t.
slvrbullet87Jun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
@venom
Is that the projections from the same people who said that we would be out of the recession by now?
cajungalJul 1, 2010
@venom
This is the first year that Social Security will be operating in the red and it will only get worse from here on out, unfortunately.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/25/social-security-in-the-red/
krisp9751Jun 30, 2010
First comment I've thumbed up on this thread.
montagguyJun 30, 2010
Thank you! I'm a liberal, but the moment I read what Boehner said, I had to agree with him. I figured I was going to scroll down the comments and see a bunch of people that assume they should be against this simply because it came out of the mouth of a Republican. Glad to see there is somebody on digg who uses their brain and doesn't just see red and blue.
adokimusJun 30, 2010
Easy to say when you're young and haven't worked for 60 years of your life.
anonnowJun 30, 2010
What about genetics? Some people live longer than others. Thanks to my genetic understanding, I know I don't have long to live on this Earth compared to others I know. Why should I get screwed in the deal?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Um..scarecrow builders:
It isn't because he's a Republican, its because he's disingenuous. If he was worried about paying for the cost of the wars, maybe he could have done something about it when his party was marching into them (you know, maybe instead of huge tax cuts and passing the prescription drug bill).
Also, I think most would agree that the SS retirement age could be increased by a few years (or payments altered to reflect longer life-spans) but it is also interesting that Boehner doesn't mention any cutbacks on corporate entitlement programs, just those programs that tend to be on the D side of the fence.
Only a serious jackass would expect thinking people to forget everything we know about agent Orange and start agreeing with a statement of his in a vacuum.
wtfinternetJun 30, 2010
No way. The age should be lowered if anything. Anyone else see something wrong with working away your life till your 65, then you get to hang out in peace for 10 years if you're lucky. That's bulls**t. There's more to life than money.
duncan202Jun 30, 2010
Historically it's a very recent idea that people don't work till they die. All animals on this planet have to work to survive -- or someone else has to work for them. Retiring is nice, but certainly isn't a right.
angelbunnyJun 30, 2010
I'm kinda on the fence when it comes to the subject. What about the economy? If everyone is working 5 more years then that makes it harder for everyone else to get jobs. I worry that increasing the age to 70 will do more harm then it would help. However, I admit I could be completely wrong.
degainerJun 30, 2010
Thank you, premiumballin. I wanted to post a similar sentiment. Economically, social security does not work as it was made to work anymore. When it was created, people saved a lot more of their income for retirement than they do now; social security was only a small supplement, not a paycheck to completely depend on like so many do today. Although raising the age for retirement does make my generation feel victimized, I think in the grand scheme, the change will encourage my generation to solve the root of the problem: to save more.
That said, I in no way support Boehner.
spartan777Jun 30, 2010
People ought to work less. When Social Security was initially implemented, the national GDP was in the millions.
hobofatsJun 30, 2010
you are leaving out the part where the system was originally designed to not pay people until they were nearing death because they knew that was the only way it would work. the system was broken from the start. upping the age would solve the problem we are facing now, but its not a good solution.
cajungalJul 1, 2010
It really is a ponsey scheme. It started like a pyramid sitting on a nice square bottom with lots of people on the bottom supporting the few on the top but now the pyramid is upside down and we are trying to balance it on the point and it just can't be done.
One solution my accounting teacher suggested a few years ago was to just remove the social security cap. The wage base for the Social Security is $106,800 for 2010. But if that were lifted, that would pretty much fix the problem; however, I am VERY leery of doing that because I have seen how irresponsible the congress has been with the Social Security trust fund in the past. I think the only way I would ever go for that fix is if there were a way to keep the grubby hands of congress off of it for all time.
irvman21Jun 30, 2010
When 65 was established the average person lived till 67. It only makes sense to raise it and it's long overdue.
aliengoodsJun 30, 2010
Raise the retirement age to pay for wars? That doesn't make a bit of sense.
csstudentJun 30, 2010
Even without the Bush/Obama wars, the long term US deficit is unsustainable due mainly to the costs of social security, medicare, medicaid, and interest on money we've already borrowed.
Take a look at the breakdown of spending for FY2009 which ended September 30, 2009. If you eliminate the Department of Defense, the spending is still out of control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budgetComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digg2point0Jun 30, 2010
Sorry... which war did Obama start?
Afghanistan and Iraq are both Bush's wars.
Obama is just correcting what should have been done: Get the job done in Afghanistan, get out of Iraq (where we should have never been.. but it's those darn terrorist.. I mean WMDs... I mean oppressed people!)
propethicJun 30, 2010
People have a hard time saying they would rather have their taxes go to killing people than into social programs
shark72Jun 30, 2010
Time for the periodic reminder that when we speak of the average lifespan being X a certain time ago, we don't mean that a lot of people keeled over at that age. In these instances, "average" means mathematical average, not "typical."
For instance, when we say that the average lifespan was 35 years in the middle ages, we don't mean the people expected to die in their 30's. It was the high mortality rate among infants and children back in the day that did the most to pull down the mathematical average. Adulthood maladies wiped out a greater percentage of the population, to be sure, but just as today... plenty of people lived into their 70s, 80s, 90s, and beyond.
At any rate, of the major nations, only Germany has a higher retirement age (67) than the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement
The USA excels in a lot of things, but "highest retirement age" isn't one of the things I want this country to be known for.
irvman21Jun 30, 2010
If people wish to retire earlier they are welcome to make good decisions during their lives which will allow them to do so. You know be personally responsible for their own actions and financial well being, a concept that gets weaker and weaker every year that passes. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ideadudeJun 30, 2010
Good point RE the mathematical average.
I can't exactly get "the life expectancy for someone who lives past 20 (and presumably starts paying SSI)", but Wolfram Alpha gets pretty close.
Data here shows that about 50% of people lived beyond 65 years old:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+life+expectancy+1935
In 2010, the data says that about 80% of people live beyond 65:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+life+expectancy+2010
So for sure more people are using SSI for longer timeframes. But I wouldn't say that is a bad thing. And I wouldn't raise the age limit unless it were necessary. I don't think it is yet.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
Spot on, @shark. People act like no one lived past 75 100 years ago. That's dumb. People lived just as long, they just died at birth or as babies more often, they died in childbirth, and they had random plagues that we don't have today. They otherwise lived just as long.
They didn't eat 100% processed chemical s**t all day long, for example, so some people were actually healthier.
diadelsuerteJun 30, 2010
I agree with raising the retirement age, but "pegging it to lifespan" seems a bit harsh.
People need time to plan for retirement, and the government being able to arbitrarily change the qualifying age for SS would throw a wrench into those plans.
Now, lets say they re-evaluate it every 10-15 years, and "grandfather" in people that are within 5-7 years of the qualifying age. Seems like a much better idea.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
how about, its MY MONEY AND ILL TELL THEM WHEN I WANT TO RETIRE!
its my money and i need it now
thcobbsJun 30, 2010
Actually, the average was 62.
skidooerJun 30, 2010
Averages are not all that telling. It is my understanding that the infant/child mortality rate was significantly higher back then. Given the skew towards those who died young, the average age of those who made it into adulthood would have been higher than 65.
armageddon2012Jun 30, 2010
Holy s**t, a lucid comment getting dugg up amongst all the mindless Republican bashing.
OMG, Republicans want to kill grandma! GOP is evil, herr derr.
Meanwhile, reality is, there's hardly a politician on either side of the aisle in D.C. who isn't well aware that Social Security is rushing headlong into oblivion and that tough choices have to be made.
lormendiJun 30, 2010
Not if you are Black. The average life expectancy is significantly lower. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
Race card? Seriously?
lormendiJun 30, 2010
No, I call it the 'statistical fact' card. You should expand your deck.
strfxJun 30, 2010
It's time to have different retirement ages for women and men. With women living about 5 years longer, their retirement age should be about 4 years higher, to have a somewhat comparable ration of retirement time to work life.
elliotysJun 30, 2010
Not only that, those 4 extra years may make up for the lifetime of unequal pay they have been receiving!
/s
aliengoodsJun 30, 2010
That was sarcasm on a genius level. My hat is off to you.
strfxJun 30, 2010
Exactly! Because we all know that 2 wrongs make a right! /s
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
What Would Jesus Do?
Oh yeah, make old people work 5 more years before they retire to support endless war and killing!
digg2point0Jun 30, 2010
Jesus was a socialist.
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
Jesus was a communist!
Jesus was a pacifist!
Jesus was a communist!
Jesus didn't like the rich!
--Reagan Youth
leadoffmanJun 30, 2010
No he wasn't. Ever hear of the Parable of talents?
dextrampennaeJun 30, 2010
Jesus NEVER advocated taking anything from anybody and giving it to someone else.
Jesus advocated charity. Taxation is not charitable giving.
kaji823Jun 30, 2010
"Give Unto Caesar What is Caesar's and Unto God What is God's"
-Jesus
Seems more like don't let your religious views meddle in politics, and to follow the laws. Politics don't have anything to do with God. I don't think Jesus cared one way or another what the tax laws were because he didn't care about material possessions (aka money).
@DDRSkata- There are quite a few quotes from Jesus talking down on the wealthy (doesn't like the rich), and to turn the cheek (pacifist). Those two are pretty safe to say. The communist part is a load though.
ddrskataJun 30, 2010
Nobody listens to Reagan Youth? I was quoting a song, not making a political statement. Lighten up, people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huem1uCVNkw
exergenJun 30, 2010
Could be worse - they could be paying for ACORN or bailing out labor union pensions.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
ACORN ROFL!
Wait, let me guess, you think James O'Keefe is an actual journalist, right?
exergenJun 30, 2010
Millions more people know about his work than your hero Rachael Maddow so I guess so. lol
beakerwimpJun 30, 2010
exergen: Haha. Genius. I love how you expose the frantic thinking of extreme right wingers with your sarcastic comment. I'll look for your future comments to shed light on other irrational focus points for both extreme right and extreme left thinkers. Keep up the good work.
armageddon2012Jun 30, 2010
So Jesus would support doing nothing and letting the whole ponzi scheme go bankrupt?
davidtcJun 30, 2010
Cause Wall Street is such a small thing in our country and the world when it comes to everything.
jrlucasJun 30, 2010
I don't know which is scarier:
How out of touch the Republican minority leader is ("American people have written off the Democrats. They're willing to look at [Republicans] again.", "overhaul of the country's health care system had 'pushed most Americans over the edge'")
Or how close the Democratic majority leader may agree with the age hike ("On the spending side, we could and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to lifespan")
So because people live longer, they should work longer? If I promise to kill myself at 50, can I retire at 25?
methdwman3Jun 30, 2010
Of course because they live longer they need to work longer! For every additional year people are alive and collecting benefits, that money needs to come from somewhere.
rhawk187Jun 30, 2010
Basically, yes. When people lived to 72, retiring at 63 meant we had to pay for 9 years of benefits. Now if they are living to 78, that means even though they put the same amount into the system, we now have to pay for an extra 66%.
The other options that would keep the system in parity would be to limit the number of years you pay out, but then you are completely cutting out people's income, which really isn't a good idea, or taking a larger percentage of their income to begin with (which I think the Democrats would love to implement).
I'd say 70 is fair. My grandfather is 72 and still working.
jrlucasJun 30, 2010
The purpose of social security from a civilian standpoint is money paid out to replace income when income no longer exists. If it means forcing people to work longer, then the system is overreaching its bounds. It should be there to ensure a legitimate income; if I can do that better on my own, and am happy with my income, then I don't feel I should be obliged into a system that's going to force me into labor.
We don't live in concentration camps, and I'm entitled to my own money.
yaosioJun 30, 2010
So the first retirement age was not based on lifespan at the time?
methdwman3Jun 30, 2010
I know people want to scoff at things like this, but how the f**k else do you expect us to take down this deficit? Even if you drastically cut military spending (which, btw, does NOT look like it's going to happen), it still wouldn't be enough. There is no doubt that entitlement spending is dragging us down, and the baby boomers aren't getting any younger. We are about to hit a huge social security crisis; I just have not heard any serious ideas on how that will be solved.
portnoyJun 30, 2010
Like how about what shulkman suggested, remove the earnings cap from SS taxes and collect SS taxes from all income? That would surely help!
methdwman3Jun 30, 2010
@port - Fine, you can do that, but that's not going to make a big dent by any means.
scottcJun 30, 2010
@meth: Removing the earnings cap would solve the problem completely, not just dent it. In fact, removing the cap on only the employer-paid portion would solve the problem. Raising it rather than removing it would be a fairer solution, and it would certainly be more popular than Boehner's idea.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
"In fact, removing the cap on only the employer-paid portion would solve the problem"
No, that would destroy the economy. We could have the rich individuals pay in more, though.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
flashingcurserJun 30, 2010
So when the rich retire do they get to take out an amount relative to what they paid in? If they do, what's the point? If they don't why not be honest and call it a tax and raise it accordingly?
slvrbullet87Jun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jones82Jun 30, 2010
Dugg for realism
shark72Jun 30, 2010
There are plenty of ways to do it. See the chart:
http://i.imgur.com/xErlb.gif
The Bush-era tax cuts account for about 15% of the deficit. That's easy to fix. We've given those tax cuts nearly a decade to work. The economy actually went in the opposite direction as Bush hoped, and he left office with a 30% approval rating. How much more of a chance do we need to give them?
The recovery expenditures will wind down next year; that will wipe out another 20%.
The "social security crisis" has been the Republican boogeyman for decades. Bush II freaked out over it. Reagan tried to reform it; his solution was the social security tax. Ask any social security privatizer and they'll tell you that social security is going to collapse any day now; that's because, after all, they want to privatize social security.
But the truth is somewhat different:
http://zfacts.com/p/784.html
methdwman3Jun 30, 2010
Your link references savings accounts proposed by Bush, so it is probably outdated. Either way, it says right in there that, left unchanged, social security will require a 20-30% reduction in benefits to stay afloat. You cannot find a link that will tell you social security will be fine with relatively small changes - it is just not true.
exergenJun 30, 2010
lol@shark72
gotta love "tax them into prosperity" philosophy
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
How about
curbing irresponsible government spending
outlaw earmarks and riders on bills
reform the Fed
income tax = flat tax
dropping the penny from US currency
cutting foreign military aid (here's looking at you, Israel)
ending the occupation of Iraq
bringing the troops back from Afghanistan
real regulations AND taxes on corporations
curb corn and oil industry subsidies
I could go all night with this, friendo
Point is, we can and need to reform our entire governmnet from top to bottom and change the very way in which we look at money, our economy, and our government's real role in that economy. Personally, I view Social Security as the product of a naive era. It won't be around when I'm 65 OR 70, that's for certain. But looking at the level of political discourse in America, there won't be much else left then either...
xdreJun 30, 2010
The flat tax will significantly increase the deficit, not decrease it. Some of the other ideas are pretty good if politically difficult, though.
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
" but how the f**k else do you expect us to take down this deficit? "
Honest Question. Do you think the current congress who is spending 150% of what they take in in taxes actually cares about the deficit ?
Is it November yet?
melektawusJun 30, 2010
Easy. Restore income tax on the top brackets to what it was during the 1960s. Deficit gone.
The only reason we have a deficit is a decades long campaign by the Republicans to reduce the taxes the rich pay. The rich used to pay 70% on the top bracket, now it's less than 40.
skittlesusaJun 30, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
How I hate simple-minded morons like yourself.
melektawusOct 28, 2010
The Laffer Curve is thoroughly discredited bulls**t. America's most prosperous times were during times of high taxation.
melektawusJul 1, 2010
You left off the part after the comma. Convenient.
"Whilst revenue continued to increase during his tenure, the US deficit increased as government spending, particularly defence spending related to the Cold War, continued to rise."
Also, while Reagan cut taxes for the top brackets, he increased taxes on lower income people to make up the difference.
Thickheaded Reagan worshippers love to say the economic growth of the 1980s was due to the tax cuts. They disregard how the economy flourished in the 1950s with taxes of over 80% on the top bracket. The economic grown of the 1980s was due to a number of factors including the growth of personal computing, the outsourcing of production to countries with less expensive labor, and the fact we were recovering from a post-war recession around the time he was elected. They ignore that countries that did not cut taxes also experienced huge economic growth. Reagan gave us a tremendous deficit by being fiscally irresponsible, giving tax cuts to the rich while increasing spending.
unmarkedJun 30, 2010
Raising the retirement age simply shifts the problem to the next generation -- typical baby-boomer crap!
I love how the baby-boomers, who have been all about "Me, me, me" for the last few decades, now want to squeeze one last bit out of the system before they hand over all the debt to those that follow.
melektawusJun 30, 2010
People still believe that Social Security is going bankrupt? That 11 trillion deficit that the Bush cronies threw around was based on actuarial studies that assumed that people would live until 150 but continue to retire at 65, and they had to project into perpetuity to get that 11 trillion figure. If you say we are going to have a 11 trillion dollar debt in an infinite number of years, it's real easy to solve. As Al Franken said, just pay one dollar a year, after 11 trillion years it's paid off and you have the rest of infinity.
More realistic projections for SS do project that spending will have to be reduced by 20-30% by 2040 if there is no growth of the economy, by the most negative of the three official forecasts, the worst case scenario. The middle of the road scenario predicts only minor adjustments to maintain a balanced budget, and the optimistic forecast shows SS taking in more than they need for payouts. And of those three forecasts, the most optimistic is the one that most often comes true over the last 60 years.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
The Al Franken? The one who can't keep his eyes open during a supreme court judge nomination hearing? That Al Franken?
thecaminoJun 30, 2010
The reason is that we really scoff at this because the government is telling us, in effect, that we're going to have to pay for all of these wars, and in order to do it, you're going to have to give five more years of your life to pay for it.
That's bull, and it really isn't freedom.
If it was freedom, we'd be able to vote on going to war in the first place.
But it isn't.
Now, some friggin' millionaire, like Boehner tells us to work harder. For something we didn't want.
mbulgeJun 30, 2010
How about placing restrictions on the ability of banks and investment groups to manipulate markets so individuals have a fair chance at saving for retirement?
strfxJun 30, 2010
You have any specific examples of these alleged manipulations?
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
The Federal Reserve.
beakerwimpJun 30, 2010
strfx: "High Speed Trading" for starters. Complex Derivative Securities come in second. The complete failure of ratings and insurance agencies to properly gauge risk for complex derivative securities comes in a close third. Shall I go on?
Obviously these instances of vast irresponsibility are not only "alleged" but admitted openly, discussed in myriad op-eds, analyzed in books and research papers, and scoffed at by reasonable human beings the world over. And they are just the tip of the ice berg.
The financial "industry" has become a grotesque mess. It has been distorted and warped into a f**ked up machine for generating digital money without productive work or benefit to society in general. When did the notion of allowing people to become part owners in companies morph into a shell game in which the "investors" know virtually nothing about the companies they own and giant chunks of the earth's population have their money funneled automatically without analysis into the bank accounts of the world's richest corporations?
You see, that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of economic theory aside from enforcing anti-productive incentives on corporations and the financial "industry". People (especially those who think "free markets" are the final answer) have lost sight of the big picture.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
That's the problem right there. These people have everyone believing that they have to gamble with their money in order afford a comfortable retirement. And then they created an economy where that's now true.
zenmojoJun 30, 2010
Except it's not true. We've been taught to measure the health of our economy by how much we're playing the slots instead of how much we're investing or how much our dollar buys or how much we are being paid. We've stopped measuring earnings and started measuring rolls of the dice.
Anyway, if we forced investors to abide by ethical systems just like we demand from lawyers and doctors, then you would see a completely different landscape. If we forced anyone who handled our money up to the same standard that they handled our legal arbitration and physical health you would see a higher standard of practice.
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
Rasing the retirement age actually isn't a bad idea. But I'd split the difference between retirees and employees. Raise the tax a little and raise the retirement age to 68, and once the Baby Boomer generation dies out, we should be fine with Social Security.
I haven't read up on the Wall Street bill passing through Congress, so I can't speak on that.
I'm prepared to wait until 2014 to see the actual effect of the Health Care bill. I think a government run system would have been better, but I think I'll see how this plays out before passing judgement.
The rest of what he said was just partisan BS. Comparing a conservative movement in the US to the Revolution is a joke.
gv402Jun 30, 2010
Paging Mr. Boner. Mr. Boner, your car is being towed.
poonchowJun 30, 2010
As much as I can't stand 90% of the Republican base, I have to agree with raising the qualifying age of the senior citizen. People are living longer today than when the current age level was set, and because of the bigger population, these people have put a massive strain on the country's budget. Most people at 60+ don't work full time and don't feed money back into the economy, it mostly goes into paying medical bills.
In my opinion you shouldn't get any government handouts unless you were a member of the Army/Navy/Air force or your spouse was. I live in Florida and it's probably the most annoying thing to deal with; the sense of entitlement the elderly have just for being old. Contribute to something before expecting a free check.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
toastjamJun 30, 2010
Right, because the only way you can contribute to our society is by carrying a gun... :P
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Well played.
Except for the emoticon... :P
jrlucasJun 30, 2010
I think it's the sense of entitlement they have for receiving their own money? At least, that's the sense I'll have, considering I'm paying into social security now. I believe if you don't pay into social security, it doesn't pay out. Its kinda like a long term loan to your future self.
poonchowJun 30, 2010
right, though I'd rather keep my money now and make my own investments. Old people just tend to be dicks about everything. (I work at a movie theater :/)
aplusplusplusJun 30, 2010
Good idea. Buried for HuffPo propaganda.
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
I don't understand how this article is propaganda.
digg2point0Jun 30, 2010
Because it's not coming from 'The Holy Trinity of Trustworthy Media': Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Please.
Wish in one hand, s**t in the other.
Boner has a better chance of being elected Queen of England than he does of moving forward in politics.
Wait...let me rephrase that: If we lived in an educated nation of rational people, this fool would be laughed out of office.
exergenJun 30, 2010
Oh how the Obama worshipers do like to whistle past the graveyard! lol
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Geez ... I've seen liberals on Digg saying that the retirement age is too early.
aliengoodsJun 30, 2010
Ah, so now it's the liberals who want to raise the retirement age, not the Republicans.
You know, you should wait for a later post before claiming as much, because right now I can just scroll up and see that you're a full of s**t Republican shill.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ageofmasteryJun 30, 2010
That's twice you've said that, and offered zero proof both times...
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Look at the comment thread. And I've seen liberals say it on other threads.
novenatorJun 30, 2010
No you haven't. Quit lying.
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
It surprises you that there are hypocrites on all points of the political spectrum?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
No. I do not support raising the retirement age. I'm just pointing out that there are liberals saying it ought to be raised.
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
Yes, but why?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
I don't know why liberals or conservatives think that it ought to be raised. It's voluntary anyway.
Many people work beyond the age of retirement. Until the official life expectancy age is increased...I do not think that we should say that people cannot get social security at 65.
They paid in. That's the deal. If you have paid in ... you get it. Some people become disabled and get it at a younger age. Some people do not retire until they are older and they continue paying in.
Now...why do you think what YOU think?
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
I meant "why do you feel the need to point out that liberals have advocated raising the SS age?"
"They paid in. That's the deal."
That's not the deal. Social Security is not a savings program. You don't get paid later because you paid in. And I'm not sure that you can call it voluntary either.
The current problem with Social Security (the reason we're running out of money for the program) is that those hitting the retirement age outnumber those currently working, so we have to dig into the trust fund (which has money generated by times when people overpaid into the system). Naturally, since Social Security is very helpful to those retiring, especially those that could not save enough to live without their income, we want to fix that. But there are only a few options.
a. Increase the tax.
b. Increase the retirement age.
c. Raise/get rid of the cap on income required for being exempt from paying into Social Security
d. Wait it out. (The baby boomers are a large part of the problem)
I advocate some combination of the four so that one single group (workers, retirees, wealthy people) is not responsible for keeping the program afloat. A small tax increase, a small increase in the retirement age (68 maybe) since the life expectancy in the US has grown since the program was implemented and people are working longer, and raise the cap to $250,000/yr. Once the baby boomers die out, the taxes and the cap can be lowered somewhat.
seriouzbidnezzJun 30, 2010
What's your point? Even if you find a specific person going back on their word (which you haven't pointed out) then you're just complaining somebody has a specific view? Not all liberals agree.You're just really talking out of your ass to support your narrative of us vs them partisanship. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
And you haven't paid attention or said anything worthy of discussion except to come after me.
And try to insult me. But you want to be taken seriouzzzzz why?
I'm so tired of you flies who hover....
armageddon2012Jun 30, 2010
How woefully uninformed do the people attacking you have to be to not realize that every politician on the national scene acknowledges that Social Security will go bankrupt if tough choices are not made.
It's not "if" Social Security goes bankrupt, but when, and the longer the politicians put off making the adjustments, the more painful the medicine will be when they finally do get the balls to try to save SS from a Greek-style meltdown.
Straight up uninformed idiocy abounds here. You really think there are any Democrats in national office that think Social Security isn't going to need some serious overhauling to stay afloat?
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
"Straight up uninformed idiocy abounds"
Yes it does. That's why it's futile to argue.
elliotysJun 30, 2010
I think Boehner is an idiot, but I don't understand why suggesting we raise the retirement age up to 70 is such a bad idea. Study after study has shown that the more engaged and active elderly people are the better they do. Also I think it is becoming obvious that social security checks at 65, while ideal, are not sustainable. Listen, we tried to do this for our society, and it is simply unsustainable because of our demographics. We need to start looking at other options.
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
"I think Boehner is an idiot, "
Agreed.
"I don't understand why suggesting we raise the retirement age up to 70 is such a bad idea."
How about a citzen gets the option to manage the 15.5% of their income in a private fund and they are never able to draw down more than what they put in ?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beratebirthersJun 30, 2010
f**k giving more money to Wall Street. The money is for our protection, that's why the government has it.
justiniusJun 30, 2010
BerateBirthers: The government doesn't have it. They've spent it already. What Social Security has in its cabinets are IOUs from the govt. in the form of Treasury Notes. So to have SS work they need to cash in the IOUs, but the government doesn't have the cash on hand, so they either have to raise taxes elsewhere, or borrow more money to cover these new outlays. Whereas if I were to be in control of that money I'd put some into savings and some into the market (bond and stock).
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
@BerateBirthers:
It's not about 'giving it to Wall street' it's about being able to manage my own money and contributions; The government proved they can't manage it, so how much worse could I do? Also being able to manage that money makes it accountable, it has to be somewhere other than in 'the government's checkbook'.
unmarkedJun 30, 2010
Changing the retirement age doesn't help much. The problem is that all the baby-boomers would be grandfathered in, and the future generation(s) are left to fiscally clean up after them.
Baby-boomers should help foot more of the bill. Yeah, it should have been done 20-30 years ago when they saw that number discrepancies from Baby boomer to Gen-X to Gen-Y. But how about we start with raising the ceiling of Social Security limit and also limit or cut those payouts to those that have 50K+ from other sources (I'm talking to you John McCain). How about we do that *first*.
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
"The problem is that all the baby-boomers would be grandfathered in, and the future generation(s) are left to fiscally clean up after them."
That's how Social Security is set up; It's a Ponzai scheme that requires perpetual growth to stay solvent.
lambog130Jun 30, 2010
"Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system"
That's why it's a bad idea. Increasing the retirement age to keep SS from going broke is one thing. But to increase it to fund a BS war? f**k that.
beson669Jun 30, 2010
The age of 65 was established in the 30's, you know, when people died not long thereafter. With modern medicine and treatment people are living well into their 80s and 90s. The social security system was never designed to be able to support people for this long in their life.
Along with this comes some personal responsibility. It's your personal responsibility to be saving your entire life, via a normal savings account, IRA account, stocks, or even if you have to stash it in the mattress.
All of the hateful comments on here just saying "f**k him" and "oh no grandma" and yet no one is really saying why raising this limit is such a terrible thing. The money is going to run out and tough decisions have to be made; there is no silver bullet answer to this. And yes, I'm not saying kill grandma to pay for wars or any other topic you may want to misdirect this towards,
affectJun 30, 2010
Money doesn't run out. Money is created out of thin air. When we are low, we print. There is no complexity behind any of this.
It's created from nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hakamanakusJun 30, 2010
In Affect's world, a stick of bubblegum costs one million dollars and the last tree was cut down to print paper money in 1976.
affectJun 30, 2010
Tell me what the rate of inflation has been on the dollar since 1900's.
chriskzooJun 30, 2010
When Social Security was enacted in 1935 the average life expectancy was 61.7 years, now it is 77. It was enacted to help keep people who outlived their expected lifespan (often women who were not bread winners) off the streets, not as a retirement plan. 70 is a good start to making it sustainable, aside from making sure Congress keeps their grubby f**king hands off SS funds.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_life_expectancy_when_social_security_was_enacted
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
"aside from making sure Congress keeps their grubby f**king hands off SS funds."
That's what really needs to happen. A constitutional ammendment starting that funds collected for social security will only be used for distributions of social security. If this were the case originally there would be no 'baby boomer crisis', these people paid into the system their entire working lives.
djtanseyJun 30, 2010
Trdrstv, that would raise two issues. First, what about those who never worked or didn't work full time? And would people onl get what they put in? So would a fast food worker get less benefits than a principal?
chriskzooJun 30, 2010
Actually, the situations you bring up would be less of an issue. High earners actually end up getting less of what they put in (e.g Bill gates is not going to get tens of millions in social security checks), while low earners get relatively more. The problem is Congress continually robs the SS fund and has literally turned it into an unsustainable (in it's current form) ponzi scheme - leaving it insolvent for everyone - those who worked more and those who didn't/can't work.
Even with all they have done to spend the money elsewhere, with interest on current funds and new contributions, it will be solvent until 2025, but all funds could be gone in 2050. Had they not dipped into that money, it would literally be a non-issue.
blackwing602Jun 30, 2010
That is completely irrelevant GARBAGE data. Nobody cares about the life expectancy of everyone at the moment of their birth.
In 1937 a 65 year old's life expectancy was 13.7 years
Today the average 65 year old can expect to live 18.4 more years.
It has gone up 4.7 years, not 15.3 as you would have us believe.
And politicians who oppose social security already well understand this lie they tell.
chriskzooJun 30, 2010
Oh, so you agree that age needs to go up.
FYI, social security starts at 62, not 65.
blackwing602Jun 30, 2010
I absolutely agree that it needs a minor tweak.
Age can go up, or the cap can go up
simonsezzJun 30, 2010
With America's obesity steadily rising at almost 1% a year, I think the average life expectancy should be back to the 1930's levels soon.
pacotheparrotJun 30, 2010
Actually Mr. Boehner, the current wall street reform bill is like trying to use an ant to destroy a nuclear bomb.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Keep the retirement age the way it is. Eliminate all federal welfare, bring the troops home, close bases in europe, etc, and make the social security trust fund solvent!
Buried because Obongo and Company is throwing around the same ideas, and this post makes it out to be like the Democrats are innocent in this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
naasukJun 30, 2010
Yeah, it's really easy doing labor, look at me! I'm sitting around deciding the fate of America all day, do you see ME complaining? NO. Now be an American and work even harder at that walmart!
rhawk187Jun 30, 2010
I wholeheartedly support this idea.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Hell no! Hell no! Hell noOoOoOoOo! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0OzxvClwoU
commodorecrunchJun 30, 2010
Love the Auto Tune Team!
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
So wait....republicans think that any kind of social programs are socialism. They're vehemently against the evil shadow of socialism casting it's evil spell on America.
But they're all for supporting grandma and grandpa working until they're 70 so they can continue to contribute to social programs and make sure they keep running?
OK, just making sure.
drekorJun 30, 2010
He's also OK with pulling SS benefits from people who have been paying for them their entire life. f**king socialist.
errdayimhustlinJun 30, 2010
Cool tan, bro. How about you s**teaters in Washington just stop spending?
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
dugg for casual use of 's**teaters'
richardstabonerJun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
shutupflandersJun 30, 2010
f**k that! How about you learn to manage money. We're not donating 1/3 of our paychecks every week so that you can bail out corporations.
tgc1Jun 30, 2010
But that's just what they did. And we can't do s**t about it. So this idea of giving them even MORE of our money, for a longer period, is horses**t.
tomgfromcanadaJun 30, 2010
fine, now ill wait til im 30 to start working
randyzaiaJun 30, 2010
hey good luck with that
jayjaylolJun 30, 2010
people have a right to retire at a young age.
retirement is a RIGHT in this country. It is an entitlement in which the government should give to its people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hakamanakusJun 30, 2010
The /s is implied, people.
exergenJun 30, 2010
you can never be sure with all these communists on Digg
falstaffJun 30, 2010
The system is bankrupt. You can complain about DoD spending, but debt payments alone are about to pass defense spending. Major entitlement reform is no longer something that just can be passed on to the next administration.
The retirement age is already 67 for most workers. It's a rather small change, and it won't be nearly enough.
chijim70Jun 30, 2010
Already passed DoD according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_social_security by .3 %
pintomp3Jun 30, 2010
People are living longer, but are those extra years really productive? Is it worth sending people with Alzheimer's and cataracts back to the workforce?
trdrstvJun 30, 2010
Welcome to Costco. I love you.
gradskiJun 30, 2010
Bravo Good Sir!! I wish I could digg you higher.
aquileriaJun 30, 2010
Not to mention it's going to f**k over local and state government pension systems when workers are suddenly staying on 10 years at the peak pay tier
vivosmithJun 30, 2010
I got an idea, get rid of govenment altogether. Privatize what need to be, the other just get rid of. And don't give me the "Well that is a Republican idea!" Ummmm.....Then what is Agorism? (Hint:look it up on Wikipedia, it is not a Right wing movement ) (Although I support it) (Oh, yeah, and read Murray Rothbard books, might give a perspective. Since most of the Left and Right are Socialist)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tomleykisJun 30, 2010
That works out well for Wall Street in 2008.
affectJun 30, 2010
Who in Ohio is going to vote this clueless assh**e out?
seriouzbidnezzJun 30, 2010
They probably won't. It is Ohio afterall.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
He's from the 8th congressional district (a bunch of farmland north of Cincinnati). They haven't elected a Democrat since 1939. Based off of that, I'd say nobody.
He's a disgrace to our state.
-Ohioan
mtjohnsonJun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
commodorecrunchJun 30, 2010
Boenher says that people are living longer than ever, and this needs to be taken into account. Also, some people are collecting Social Security benefits and don’t need them, so why pay? Here’s a few facts:
If you were born after 1960, the current retirement age is 67 years for full retirement benefits. (From ssa.gov)
The average life expectancy in the U.S. is 77.9 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (as of 2007, but varies by gender, race and a whole boatload of other stuff)
So, on one hand, raising the retirement age a few more years doesn’t seem that bad, except that you may only have ten years or less of living retired to enjoy at that point. Plus, if you limited payments to “those who need them”, who determines that? Also, if you worked all your life and paid into the Social Security Trust (assuming the trust is, in fact, a real “lock box”…hee hee! Suckers!) with your SSI tax, and then later are denied that money, isn’t that a great big evil tax that “redistributes wealth”?! Sounds like Boehner is a commie-pinko…err..orange-o?!
Perhaps Boehner’s statistics on extended life expectancies are based on Congressmen and Senators who make good money and have cushy jobs with the finest government funded healthcare your tax dollars can buy!
But perhaps my views on the orange man are jaundiced and I’m just green with envy that he is willing to scream until he’s blue in the face on the way to put this country back in the black and turn Ohio into a red state. But I think my position is clear: Boehner is a prick.
misscellaniaJun 30, 2010
I was born in 1958, and my latest SS statement said I wouldn't receive full benefits until I am 70, even though I am fully vested. I can get partial benefits by retiring at 67.8 years.
commodorecrunchJun 30, 2010
Your mileage may vary:
http://www.ssa.gov/retirement/1960.html
unic0rnJun 30, 2010
Why don't I see one comment making fun of the fact his last name is "Boner"?
jasmareeJun 30, 2010
I don't know. I've seen several.
unic0rnJun 30, 2010
Oh.
I should have looked a bit harder.
shingoexJun 30, 2010
Because some people in here are actually above the age of 12.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
This is Digg. Physically, yes. Mentally, no.
If you want any sort of stimulating conversation, head to NPR or BBC.
wonderchemistJun 30, 2010
My solution: Bacon
mickman17Jun 30, 2010
Those who are upset with Boehner (and for those who care - I truly apologize - Ohio is not proud of mr. Fake-n-bake) - are so because they must raise the retirement age to pay for the wars - not just because its sensible. I do agree that if people are living longer - there should be some adjustment to the age of retirement - but only because it is sensible and not because we are still fighting wars that have no end in sight. Also - I think the Congress should be mandated to convert their "pensions" to the SSN program and receive benefits when they hit the same age as the limit they see fit to set. Additionally - any public official (from local school board to the Chief of Staff) that "retires" and begins to draw from the fund - it banned from taking another role in public service. Just google it and you will find that many, many public officials "retire" then get hired back as they are the "experts" for the roles they retired from and get paid a full salary and their retirement benefits together - all from the public dime...
So here is how it works - The congress raids the fund to "borrow" money to spend on s**t like wars and to fund tax cuts for people who really dont need them. Then they put an IOU into the drawer and hope that one day the taxpayer will pay it back. If they left the fund alone and didnt take anything from it - it would be fine. But yet again, we must use the funds that "we" owe the soc. security drawer to pay for the wars and thus not put it back into the fund. So in the end - we have been f**ked and f**ked again hard by our wonderful politicians - first when they took the money out of the fund (without out explicit consent - and seeing that it was our monies they should have had to have a federal referendum to see if it was ok for them to steal from our piggy bank) that was created from our ssn monies directed from our paychecks - then again from our federal taxes to pay back "our" money they took in the first place.. That is why SSN adds to the deficit - not because its a broken system but because the damn thieves in washington cannot keep their greedy little paws out of our piggy bank. Even if you hate Al Gore - the "lockbox" idea was the right thing to do with SSN monies...
So yes - f**k Boehner and any other politician who doesn't prioritize paying back the liabilites they took from the fund over the last 2-3 decades to pay for tax cuts, wars, corporate welfare, and other bulls**t political activities that have essentially bankrupted our treasury.
Whew - climbing off my soapbox now... Thanks for letting me rant!
chijim70Jun 30, 2010
It's not "all from the public dime" if they paid into it their entire lives! They ARE the public.
The rest I agree with to a degree just had to point that out.
cainkreigerJun 30, 2010
Good post, but I say f**k them all and just plan your retirement yourself and retire at a much earlier age.
georgetirebiterJun 30, 2010
Looks like HuffPo is stirring up the pot again.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Raised retirement age - people are living longer these days - lifting the wage cap - and ending the Social Security exception for state and local employees - will preserve Social Security for the foreseeable future. Everyone should be in the same boat.
Another idea on the subject of retirement savings: a lot of small businesses or self-employed people don't have the time or the money to spend creating a 401k plan or IRA accounts. So why shouldn't there also be some sort of "Universal Retirement Savings Account" that everyone gets put on unless they explicitly opt out. Just add another box to the W-2.
It could work like this: If you don't write anything, you save 5% of your earnings by default; you can also put a percentage of your net pay or a dollar amount per pay period or write "NO". Social Security would then collect the % or the $ or nothing if you don't want to participate, and you could put them into whatever kind of savings or fund arrangement the market has to offer, from government bonds to mutual funds.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shawnzulmaJun 30, 2010
Is that , A/C sucking, overpaid ,Chairborne Ranger Govt employee (like myself) aware that a lot of jobs involve considerable physical labor? Hell even working at Wal-Mart, can u imagine a 69 year old cashier? The line would never move! Those overpaid mo-fo's in govt want people to keel over in pain and die before they are able to collect any of the benefits that they are entitled too. i busted my butt in the US Army for 13 long years and now i have a cushy govt job. I want to enjoy a little bit of whatever life I have left around 65. And i feel it will be well deserved. 70 is just to much for 99% of people. We may be living longer but definitely not healthier. That is ridiculous.
skinturtleJun 30, 2010
We may live longer now...but we're getting more tired out earlier. The weird thing about technology is that while it's giving us convenience...it's also allowing to fit more work into one schedule...making the work day much harder to keep up with. The stress to keep up is much worse.
Besides it's hard enough to get a job because some of these old geezers won't retire is bad enough. The longer we keep them in the workforce...the less openings there will be for younger and more productive energy working those jobs.
chijim70Jun 30, 2010
Say that when you're 50 and have a family to support. Or 65 without enough money to retire. Experience counts in some fields FAR more than production speed.
Ah what am I bothering for? This was written by a guy who defends faith in God in one post and fapping in his next lol. Yeah, consistency comes with age as well...
skinturtleJun 30, 2010
Yeah but what does that have to do with this conversation? I don't know that I've ever answered "yes" to any polls asking people if they thought they were perfect. "Fapping" is a much better term to use than the alternatives. What man doesn't fap? As a matter of fact...without pornography involved...it is my opinion that it's ok with God. Better than screwing around and getting diseases. Your comment is nothing but a cheap shot in all actuality.
But back to the conversation. I didn't think there was any law stating that you HAVE to retire at 65? Keep going if you need to. But for those who want to at 65 in order rest from their long years of labor...making them wait until 70 is ridiculous and it just means the young people who want to enter the work force to gain the experience you speak of can't do that until long after they really should be.
If you are still supporting a family at 65 (besides yourself and your wife/girlfriend)...then someone needs to be kicked out of the house!