Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . . but lets face facts, both parties have screwed the pooch here.
Entitlements in general - and Social Security in particular - have been the 3rd rail in Washington for decades. Both parties have known that the chickens would eventually come home to roost.
Well, today is the day. Benefits paid to SS recipients ALREADY exceed receipts. Let me say that again: Benefits paid to SS recipients ALREADY exceed receipts.
If you're not willing to pay more, or receive less then you're part of the problem.
The problem with this is Social Security is flush with assets. They are sitting on tens of trillions in US Treauries.. Its just the the us government never wants to pay back these funds which is why they are making the adjustments. And liberals celebrat this as being fiscal, even though it screws the taxpayers
Republicans pushed for 80% of the trillion dollars we just went deeper into debt for. I disagree with the lowering of social security taxes when its already in a hole, but lets face facts, both parties have screwed the pooch here.
Democrats, led by Pelosi, held the purse strings for four years, and the deficit soared by $6 trillion, so don't start out blaming republicans.
I'll agree that both parties make up the ruling class in Washington, and they spend too much, and have too high an impression of their ability to "fix" things. We conservatives have elected people we feel will reduce spending, and bring sanity back to government. Are you climbing on board with us, to cut government spending, reduce waste and fraud. Are you just another tax and spend lib, who thinks we need to grow more government and continue along the same path that the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Waxman have been blazing for the past twenty years?
Democrats, led by Pelosi, held the purse strings for four years, and the deficit soared by $6 trillion, so don't start out blaming republicans.
I'll agree that both parties make up the ruling class in Washington, and they spend too much, and have too high an impression of their ability to "fix" things. We conservatives have elected people we feel will reduce spending, and bring sanity back to government. Are you climbing on board with us, to cut government spending, reduce waste and fraud. Are you just another tax and spend lib, who thinks we need to grow more government and continue along the same path that the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Waxman have been blazing for the past twenty years?
The deficit was increased with the medicare bill passed by a Republican congress and President Bush by 7 trillion dollars in one vote, in one day.
People are living longer, and I'd rather work till 70 and get social security than to not get anything at all. Its really quite hard to make out what he's talking about specifically about social security when its not even talked about in the article.
Whether people actually live longer is debatable: I think it's more a function of reduction in infant mortality. Also, whether they live longer or not is really irrelevant--how many people do you know that have good enough health to continue to work at the insane pace and ridiculous work hours required of a modern worker into their 70s? Not many that I know. Even those who take a break for childbearing find it incredibly hard to get back into working the insane workweeks required to keep CEOs filthy rich.
No employers would hire anyone over 55 in our area, even before the total economic collapse, and the job market is much worse now.
You've got to be out of your mind, or a masochist, if you're a wage-slave and actually want to work until you are 70 or more. If you are going to sell your entire life for a small bit of money in retirement, you might as well enjoy life a bit and then shoot yourself when you run out of money.
The politicians in Washington STOLE the $2.5 trillion in Social Security Trust Fund Money that we taxpayers already paid--money which actually paid for the retirement of the Baby Boom. And yet every single "solution" offered by those politicians involve my generation paying even more and getting even less. We are the generation that worked our entire lives for stagnating wages and constantly lowered benefits. We worked twice as hard and twice as much as the previous generation, and they got rich while we are told to work AND CONTINUE PAYING THEM until we die.
And the lemmings continue to support politicians who say the only choice possible is to move the retirement age to 70 or get nothing. WRONG! There are a million things you can do, and many don't involve further robbing those of us who are already getting much less than we invested in SS taxes.
Let's let the pain be shared by those who can MOST afford it: the current already-retired lottery-winning generation that got high pay, great working conditions, easy hours, fat pensions, and riches from cashing in on the housing run-up and stock price run-ups before my generation came on the scene to pay the price for all the previous generations' excesses. And how about crossing those who get pensions off of the roles of SS? They obviously don't need the retirement income like those of us who were robbed by corporate America with the full collusion of the criminals we elected to government.
I would love to see a class-action lawsuit that confiscates the wealth of the scum in Washington that stole and spent the Social Security Trust Fund. They commited criminal fraud and should not be protected by the legal system. We need to change the laws so the crooks that cost Americans their retirement should have to pay compensation.
And if you want to work until 90, feel free. But don't be surprised when you are laid off at age 55, or become too sick to work in your 60s.
I personally believe the age limit for social security should be raised slowly to 68-70 (which should fix all deficits with SS). Life expectancy has been increasing therefore an age increase for social security should occur accordingly. (This increase in life expectancy is actually well documented. So no, it's not debatable... unless you want to argue against the whole medical community)
This program was never meant to support someone as long as it does now (and it will only get worse in the future). The truth is social security is a money guzzler that we simply can't afford. This program will put a huge financial burden on future generations if something is not done. Cutting social security all together would be unfair to those who have already paid taxes into the system for years. As a result, we must decide between raising the age limit or increasing payroll taxes. It's painful but we must make a choice. I feel that raising the age limit would be a far smarter option than raising taxes. Besides, people need to be responsible to finance their own retirements and not completely rely on the government.
I personally believe the age limit for social security should be raised slowly to 68-70 (which should fix all deficits with SS).
the problem with this argument is that SS isnt hurting at all. The SS trust fund is sitting on tens of trillions worth of US Treasuries. If there runs a period of time that the Social Security runs a deficit, they simply cash in some of these trillions of IOU's..
Politicians of course dont want that because they see the SS as a "tax", not as some fund that ever needs to be paid back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
