Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop it, stop saying Social Security needs reform, you are a Democrat, right? (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Cuts were Made! So the Bigger Issue is Lost (24+ / 0-)

    Several years back, Congress got to thinking about ways to reform Social Security and so they moved the age requirement by which people can now get their full Social Security benefits up to Age 67.

    This means that my govenrment has reneged on the contract initially offered to me! When I joined the work force, some 40 years ago, i was told I wold pay in, and then I could have retirement at age 65. not 67, age 65.

    So this is affecting tens of millions of us Baby Boomers, as we have to figure out how to manage our health in order to say working till age 67. And do the math - while experts quibble over whether CPI cuts could be made at a rate of 1.3% or more, these two years means we Baby Boomers are losing out on 100 % times Two Full Years! Yet no one is mentioning this!

    Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

    by Truedelphi on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:20:19 PM PST

    •  This time they aren't even getting revenue (13+ / 0-)

      Yes, they've already broken faith with us once.  At least in that deal they did bring some more revenue into the program by raising the cap.  This time they are not doing that.  This is purely raiding Social Security to pay for the Iraq War and for the tax cuts for people making as much as $400K in taxable income.

      If they get away with using Social Security as a piggy bank for other purposes, they'll be back again and again.

      Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  

      My letters go unanswered.  My calls are ignored.  I am not a fat cat with millions to pay you off.  All I have left is my vote and you will not have that again if you do this.

    •  No, you can still retire at 65 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, elwior, wader, Robobagpiper

      you just won't get full benefits if you do.
      Here's a good explanation: http://www.ssa.gov/...

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:32:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I "retired" at 62, took the low amount (17+ / 0-)

        but will collect 5 more years of dough than those who retire at 67, my philosophy being you could drop dead any minute. Gimme my dough now.

        "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes

        Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

        by OleHippieChick on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:05:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The math on this is interesting, IMHO (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          indie17, i dont get it, Truedelphi

          According to the linked site, if you have a full benefits retirement age of 67 and retire at age 62 your monthly benefit is reduced by 30%.

          Meanwhile, their actuaries claim that the life expectancy for people who retired in 2000 was 81 for males and 84 for females. So, lets assume that I live to 81 (since I'm a male, but I assume that OleHippieChick is either a female or a poultry farmer) and compare the outcomes.

          81-62 is 19 years of benefits at 70% of the rate, or the equivalent of 13.3 years at the 100% level. 81-67 is 14 years, you can see that you end up slightly worse off if you live to the expected age, but only by about 5%.

          The break-even point is 16.67 years of early retirement vs. 11.67 years of full retirement, or about 2.33 years shorter than average life expectancy. Clearly if you have an inkling about your particular chances based on health, family history, etc. you might well be advised to take one or the other based on that information.

          If you were to live to 90, in the early retirement scenario you collect 19.6 years worth of full benefits, but would have gotten 23 years of benefits if you had waited to 67. This turns out to be about a 15% reduction overall.

          Clearly, the goal is to retire early and die young :-)

      •  Thank you for making that clear. (0+ / 0-)

        People do need to know they can still get some of their benefit monies if they retire early.

        I was just too mad to point this out. I have so little faith left in the system. A few good people still out there - Jackie Spiers, John Garamendi, and Pete DeFazio. Most of the other "elected" people have sold the middle class out again and again.

        The ones at the top are shameless.

        Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

        by Truedelphi on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 05:13:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It was in 1983 (17+ / 0-)

      And our payroll taxes were also raised while our retirement age went up.

      This 'reform' was supposed to cover the boomer's retirement.  Now we're being blamed (again) even though, like you, I paid this increased payroll tax throughout my working life.

      you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

      by Dem Beans on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:56:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As a child to you baby boomers (0+ / 0-)

      I'll offer that the historians will not be kind to your generation.  You whine about the government reneging on the deal they made to you but at every opportunity your generation (as a collective) screwed over future generations.  

      The two most obvious examples of this are the debt and our oil reserves.   If you want to refute me go ahead and do the following calculations.

      When you turned 18 what year was it?
      What was the national debt at that time?
      What was the national debt per capita at that time?
      What is the national debt now and what is the national debt per capita at his time?
      When you turned 18 what was the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and when was "peak oil" expected to hit?  What did your generation do to change the outcome?

      Now, if you think I am hypercritical of the boomers, I'll accept that interpretation although that is not my intent.  Because, while I am critical of your generation, I must admit that my generation's (Gen X) response has been woefully inadequate.

      But instead of getting into a finger pointing debate on who's generation is to blame, let's instead talk about how to move on from here.   I would like to do that but there is very little appetite to examine what has (or hasn't been) done and what to do next.  

      We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

      by theotherside on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:49:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  cute. (7+ / 0-)

        Your first four paragraphs consist of finger pointing. Then your last paragraph says not to get into a finger pointing debate.

        To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate--that is strength undefeatable. (Helen Keller)

        by kareylou on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:31:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe I understand your point (0+ / 0-)

          but perhaps you could better understand what I'm saying with this analogy.

          In 2010, I could make the argument that we need to recover from the mistakes of the war in Iraq.  I could perhaps  make arguments about why Republicans were more to blame than Democrats and I could provide vote totals and arguments leading up to the war to prove my point, but the MAIN point would be how to correct the mistake of that war instead of assigning blame.

          I can understand how Republicans would view that as a cute way to assign blame for the run up to the war but that's not my point.  I am merely pointing out, as a matter of historical record, that Republicans were largely to blame for the Iraq war in much the same way that boomers are largely to blame for the deficits of the past 30 years and the policies that led us to our oil current consumption.

          If you want to say that the Republican boomers were more to blame than the Democrat boomers, ok, fine.  My point is that future generations will scarcely care whether they got screwed over by a person with an "R" or "D" by their names but they will remember which generation did it.  And to be frank, there aren't a lot of choices when it comes to the generations that ran up the deficits and burned through the oil and caused global warming.

          Yet another way to put it is, I don't necessarily blame white people for Jim Crow in the 1950's and 60's, if I were alive then I would merely ask for an ending of the policy.  With that said, it's pretty clear that white people instigated those policies, right?  I can understand why white people would view that as an unfair characterization of their group but a dispassionate view of the situation would, I believe, show that this was the case.

          So it is with deficits and global warming vis a vis the boomer generation although, admittedly, there is far more generational overlap in regards to these issues than there was to the white power structure and minorites in the decades of the past.

          Does that make sense?  Or do you want to argue that some other generations have been in charge of the US government for the past 30 years and they ran up the deficits and they pursued policies that led to AGW?

          We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

          by theotherside on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:58:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do us all a favor and stuff the generational blame (7+ / 0-)

            It has no place here.

          •  Thanks for the detailed answer (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indie17, aliasalias

            This is essentially a dead thread, but I feel you went to an awful lot of trouble there, so I should reply.
                 I believe your logical fallacy is in assuming a parallel between a political party and a "generation". A political party is a definable entity. One can identify its members, and even more importantly, one must sign up to be included as part of the entity.
                 A "generation" is only definable by the dates between which the "members" were born. More importantly, one cannot decide to be a Boomer or a Millennial.  The only way to be inducted is to be born on a certain date.
                 I suppose you would label me as a Boomer. But believe me, I have not been in charge of anything. We all know who runs the country, who has been running it for quite some time, and it is not middle-aged unpartnered piano teachers with severe health problems. Yet you lump me in with George W Bush. I could as easily lump you in with mass shooters. After all, my generation didn't engage in such things to the extent that the new generation does. Yet that would never occur to me.  
                 You seem to be under the impression that it is a flaw in the DNA of our generation--if you and your friends had been born in 1958, as I was, you would have prevented global warming and the corporate takeover of our government. I just don't believe that.
                 I believe that humans are humans, beautiful and flawed, and that some of the beauty is places like this, where people of any age, type, etc, can come together and attempt to make the world better. We don't even know what groups others belong to unless they choose to share. That is why it is distressing to me when people try to divide our fragile coalition by, as you put it, "finger-pointing".  
                 

            To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate--that is strength undefeatable. (Helen Keller)

            by kareylou on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:17:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Boomers were out in force (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox

            Protesting the Wars in Iraq, both in January 1991, and in January, February and March of 2003.

            So the debt from those wars cannot be blamed on those of us who are progressive. And more and more of EVERYBODY, all ages, all political backgrounds, are starting to realize how both Political Parties are  screwing over the Middle Class.

            In any event - the big deal about the deficit is this factoid - when Bill Clinton left office, January 20th 2001, the nation's budget was at a surplus in standing. It was the insistence on fighting against the people  of Iraq, combined with the collapse of the economy in late 2008 that has racked up so much debt. (And consider that the 2008  collapse  should be blamed on everyone in Congress and also Clinton, for their passing the Bank Reform and Modernization Act, of 2000, which eliminated Glass Steagall protections. of course, Clinton was offered his gig of getting some $ 100K per speech for that, so he came out alright.)

            Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

            by Truedelphi on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:23:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hold on just a minute there, Sparky. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, indie17

        The boomers turned over the reins to GenX in 1979, when they turned 18, so everything from 79 to 1991 is their fault.  And of course, everything from 1991 - now is the fault of the millennials.  Because that's how you measure these things, right?  When your generation turns 18, they hand the country over to you and you get to run it as you see fit.

        Look what those damned kids have done to the country!

        Well, let's not point fingers about it.  Let's talk about how rotten those Gens Y and Z will probably be.  I'd like to do that, but this has worn me out, and I gotta go take my nap.

      •  When I turned 18 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, aliasalias

        and began working soon after, my payroll tax was funding the Social Security of my grandparents who were born in the 1880's and my parents who were born in the 1920's (my mother is still living).  I will only begin to collect Social Security this year.

    •  Speaking of CPI cuts, I think I know what Chained (0+ / 0-)

      CPI is, but the diary also mentions "Superlative" CPI.  What is that?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (65)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (39)
  • Media (36)
  • Environment (36)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Barack Obama (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Jeb Bush (25)
  • Culture (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Economy (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Science (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site