Attacking Social Security

The currently fashionable idea of raising the retirement age even more than it will rise under existing law — it has already gone from 65 to 66, it’s scheduled to rise to 67, but now some are proposing that it go to 70 — is usually justified with assertions that life expectancy has risen, so people can easily work later into life. But that’s only true for affluent, white-collar workers — the people who need Social Security least.

I’m not just talking about the fact that it’s a lot easier to imagine working until you’re 70 if you have a comfortable office job than if you’re engaged in manual labor. America is becoming an increasingly unequal society — and the growing disparities extend to matters of life and death. Life expectancy at age 65 has risen a lot at the top of the income distribution, but much less for lower-income workers. And remember, the retirement age is already scheduled to rise under current law.

So let’s beat back this unnecessary, unfair and — let’s not mince words — cruel attack on working Americans. Big cuts in Social Security should not be on the table.

DesperateInRI wrote:

The currently fashionable idea of raising the retirement age even more than it will rise under existing law — it has already gone from 65 to 66, it’s scheduled to rise to 67, but now some are proposing that it go to 70 — is usually justified with assertions that life expectancy has risen, so people can easily work later into life. But that’s only true for affluent, white-collar workers — the people who need Social Security least.

I’m not just talking about the fact that it’s a lot easier to imagine working until you’re 70 if you have a comfortable office job than if you’re engaged in manual labor. America is becoming an increasingly unequal society — and the growing disparities extend to matters of life and death. Life expectancy at age 65 has risen a lot at the top of the income distribution, but much less for lower-income workers. And remember, the retirement age is already scheduled to rise under current law.

So let’s beat back this unnecessary, unfair and — let’s not mince words — cruel attack on working Americans. Big cuts in Social Security should not be on the table.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

DesperateInRI wrote:

The currently fashionable idea of raising the retirement age even more than it will rise under existing law — it has already gone from 65 to 66, it’s scheduled to rise to 67, but now some are proposing that it go to 70 — is usually justified with assertions that life expectancy has risen, so people can easily work later into life. But that’s only true for affluent, white-collar workers — the people who need Social Security least.

I’m not just talking about the fact that it’s a lot easier to imagine working until you’re 70 if you have a comfortable office job than if you’re engaged in manual labor. America is becoming an increasingly unequal society — and the growing disparities extend to matters of life and death. Life expectancy at age 65 has risen a lot at the top of the income distribution, but much less for lower-income workers. And remember, the retirement age is already scheduled to rise under current law.

So let’s beat back this unnecessary, unfair and — let’s not mince words — cruel attack on working Americans. Big cuts in Social Security should not be on the table.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Forum Rules
1. Please, no swearing on the forums. While this kind of language may be easy to use, we ask that everyone refrain from using it. This includes trying to by pass the forums censored words by adding a * or a # in the text.

2. Do not use any type of abusive or offensive language/behavior.

Judi58 wrote:let me ask... so they take away SSI I am 53 they let everyone over 55 stay in the program..(as I have heard the Rep are trying to pass) what happens to my SSI that I have put in over the last 32 years? Do I get a check or is it just gone and see ya later....

The whole thing stinks to me.. How about anyone born after 2012... But all of us who have been adding to this pot thinking it would be there for us are just screwed out of OUR money.. seems almost like robbery... just my .02 worth

MaryKay wrote:Actually 1208 that isn't correct, the changes he is look to make are on the costing side of the Social Security program and Medicare program not on the benefit side. And if it works and saves money, it's still a cost cutting measure.

Springflowers wrote:Yeah I probably sinned with that one.

But she does have the whole Marie Aintoinette thing going.

Ever read about some of those expensive vacations she takes?

Springflowers wrote:Yeah I probably sinned with that one.

But she does have the whole Marie Aintoinette thing going.

Ever read about some of those expensive vacations she takes?

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

Springflowers wrote:Yeah I probably sinned with that one.

But she does have the whole Marie Aintoinette thing going.

Ever read about some of those expensive vacations she takes?

I believe before Obama was prez. She made more money. No I have not, do you have any links?

Springflowers wrote:

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

Springflowers wrote:Yeah I probably sinned with that one.

But she does have the whole Marie Aintoinette thing going.

Ever read about some of those expensive vacations she takes?

I believe before Obama was prez. She made more money. No I have not, do you have any links?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/06/michelle-obamas-lavish-spain-vacation-sparking-criticism/

Theres been a few more since then like an African Safari etc.