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.
This is just Chris Christie doing nothing but trying to distinguish himself from the other candidates. It creates drama and when it doesn't get through congress he can say he tried.
All that has ever been needed is the simplest of solutions and that is to remove the cap that limits participation by those who have done well.
Raising the age is increasing the possibility of getting all the money paid in forfeited in the hope more will die before they can collect. Do we really want a plumber or electrician showing up with a walker to make repairs ? Increasing the age has the potential of more people getting disability and causing a faster drain on the system.
What the banker owned politicians want is a new revolutionary way to control your money from cradle to grave and the quicker they can get you into that grave the better they like it. The legislation will be written by those bankers and rubber stamped by their revolving door comrades. There is no limit to the endless sachems designed to get the citizen separated from his money. Somehow they will up the age and the banker will end up with the money you paid in but died before you could collect. Just another fee or whatever is in their interest.
What about the people who had a lot of money going into retirement and then somehow lost it all, should they die in the streets or be allowed to collect?
Christie's concept is based on non Social Security income during retirement, not wealth.
They should, but they don't. Does the bailout bill and Obamacare ring a bell? The majority of Americans wanted neither, but lawmakers rammed them down our throats anyway. If you think lawmakers listen to Americans, you're one of the "stupid American voters" Gruber referred to when explaining why the Obama Admin and the Dem Congress lied to Americans about what they KNEW the negative impacts of Obamacare would be. Think very carefully about that...
Yes there is, it's already running deficits and it will grow. It worked fine when there were more younger people paying in than taking out but that is now upside down. They should have addressed this decades ago and the longer they wait the greater the impact.
Has not mattered who sat the oval or held the majority.
Congress preferred to ignore the facts and kick the can.
Uncap the benefit payments as well, and they may take you up on that.
What they WON'T do is pay more for the same benefit limit.
But they will expect those servants who've paid in to get reduced benefits. Your argument is simple NIMBYism in my opinion.
As for Christie ... hell, he's just squeezing that orange, and making sure none of the proletariat can do the same. It's his playbook, and quite predictable.
Pay in to SS all of one's life only to be denied so that it can be diverted to those who have less.
The GOP leaders are the real socialists!
nope, but changes do have to be made. Of course you don't take from those who have paid in, to support those who have not. Christie is wrong. That doesn't mean changes are not in order and I feel sorry for some running for office. If they try to point out what changes need to be made, you hear: no way, we want what is ours. Of course you do, it is just a matter of when you should start getting it and if you should be forced to pay in more. Someone has to get through to people: things have to change.
Nice to hear at least one politician admitting there is a problem with social security, so let the millionaires keep their SS. I would love to hear one politician propose reform, either increase pay in, cut benefits or increase the age, it will be bankrupt in a few years.
Exactly and you said it a lot better than I did. I wonder what it will take for people to realize this? No one is talking about changing any SS or Medi Care policies overnight. Any changes would be effective in years to come: probably affect those who are not yet, even 50 and have 30 or 40 years to live. When it was indtroduced in the 30s life expectacy was 3 to 5 years after retirement, not 20 or 30.
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.
