Skip to main content

View Diary: Alan Simpson's Social Security lessons (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He's LYING. (17+ / 0-)

    Evangelical crashers into the Tea Party are ignorant. The rest of conservatism -- in both parties-- is fucking LYING.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed May 11, 2011 at 07:27:06 PM PDT

    •  When on a Greater Mission, anything is allowed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, 2020adam

      Get to the Noble End by any Means convenient, there's no issue there. And thus, Corruption is King.


      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Wed May 11, 2011 at 07:33:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This FP article is i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t. Big time. (0+ / 0-)

      Simple fact:

      Bowles-Simpson lowers the full-retirement age for manual labor jobs immediately from 66 to 62.

      This is stated explicitly in the Proposal and has been supported repeatedly -- including making a small rise in the taxed-income limit to pay for it.

      For those who read:

      Co-Chairs Draft Proposal

      For those who watch teevee:

      Charlie Rose spends the hour talking to Bowles and Simpson

      The label "catfood commission" was coined before anything had been floated publicly. Typical inside-the-Beltway partisan foolishness.

      Social Security is changed the least of any large program that the Proposal addresses. And since the Proposal was published -- discussion centering on Option # 2 -- the sole budget change has been the suggestion to cut Defense and Intel by more than the $100-billion a year.

      Bowles has discussed expanding the Community Health Clinic system -- the Kennedy-Sanders system -- as part of retaining Merdicare/Medicaid and protecting it from the endemic corruptions we're seeing with treatment for chronic care patients. That's targeting as much as $1-trillion a year in bogus/useless "referrals" and conflicting prescriptions -- the American Exceptionalism approach to bad and expensive medicine..

      Go after massive waste -- get called "the catfood commission" by a self-proclaimed librul.

      Cut retirement age for manual labor jobs -- get slandered that you're doing the opposite.

      If you want research done right, do it yourself. Trust nobody in the Village. Ever.

      Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

      by vets74 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 05:33:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why distort (2+ / 0-)

        for the likes of Simpson?

        A hardship exemption is not an automatic reduction in retirement age, it is like proving disability, you must demonstrate eligibility, do you have personal experience with that system, know how many people wait years for final decisions and don't always get it?   In the meantime, what are those people supposed to do?

        Government's own reviews of that aspect say that raising the retirement age when increase disability claims, making it likely that more more will be spent than not messing with the retirement age and providing funding from increasing the payroll cap and if necessary, adding a couple more indexing levels so that very high wage earners don't drain the system with large payouts.

        •  Read, then bitch. (0+ / 0-)

          This Cochairs' Proposal is quite different from what is presented in the article.

          Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

          by vets74 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:14:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Co-Chair's proposal that you linked says (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jfromga, bay of arizona
            Hardship exemption for those unable to work beyond 62
            on page 45.  That's the only place it appears to mention the retirement age doing anything but increasing.

            Do you have another source that gets you from that, to

            Bowles-Simpson lowers the full-retirement age for manual labor jobs immediately from 66 to 62.
            ?
            •  The Charlie Rose interview and the detailed (0+ / 0-)

              presentation at the fiscalcommission.org site.

              It's not rocket science.

              Also, the one increase to age is set for 2075 -- apart from what is already on the books. Blaming Bowles-Simpson for what is already law seems dishonest, though it is done repeatedly in the kochsucker MSM.

              Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

              by vets74 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:51:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If I have time, I'll watch the whole video later (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jfromga, joynow

                but I just looked at the detailed commission presentation (pdf) (it's fiscalcommission.gov, BTW).

                Here's what it says about retirement at 62 (page 52, recommendation 5.5):

                First, the Commission proposes allowing beneficiaries to collect up to half of their benefits as early as age 62, with applicable actuarial reduction, and the other half at a later age (therefore incurring a smaller actuarial reduction).
                [snip]
                Second, we propose a hardship exemption for those who may not qualify for disability benefits, but are physically unable to work beyond the current EEA. A recent RAND analysis reported that 19 percent of early retirees claimed a work-limiting health condition that would have limited their ability to continue in the paid labor force. To protect this population, the Commission proposal sets aside adequate resources to fund a hardship exemption for up to 20 percent of retirees.

                That's not the same thing as "lowering the full-retirement  age for manual labor jobs immediately from 66 to 62."

                And this

                Also, the one increase to age is set for 2075
                is not true.  From the same report, page 51, Reccomendation 5.4:
                After the Normal Retirement Age (NRA) reaches 67 in 2027 under current law, index both the NRA and Early Eligibility Age (EEA) to increases in life expectancy, effectively increasing the NRA to 68 by about 2050 and 69 by about 2075, and the EEA to 63 and 64 in lock step.
                To account for increasing life expectancy, the Commission recommends indexing the retirement age to gains in longevity. The effect of this is roughly equivalent to adjusting the retirement ages by one month every two years after the NRA reaches age 67 under current law. At this pace, the NRA would reach 68 in about 2050, and 69 in about 2075; the Early Eligibility Age (EEA) would increase to 63 and 64 in step.
                This approach would also maintain a constant ratio of years in

                The increases in retirement age are in full effect by 2075, but they start increasing above current law in 2027.

                •  I understood that the increase to 68 (0+ / 0-)

                  was already in the SS plan. If you are born after 1960 then the ratios are calculated differently from

                  That application of retirement at 62 for 20% of the workforce is understood by Bowles and Simpson to apply 50% to manual labor jobs -- which means that 10% are normal disabilities and 10% are for manual jobs where age is a controlling factor.

                  I do know a man in Jersey City who is still moving furniture in his 80's. Obviously he is 1-in-a-1,000.

                  We'll see how this goes.

                  I do expect this segregation for manual jobs to get into the code.

                  Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

                  by vets74 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:11:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I did read (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bay of arizona, vets74

            the actual proposal is a hardship exemption.   And who determines physical labor, just your last job, or the job you held 35 years before you became greeter at Walmart because you couldn't do your old job any more?

            Again, you distort, excuse and believe psycho's babble trying to excuse a plan that will hurt the poorest and oldest of our citizens.

            Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see,   people out there are trying to lie.  You are aiding and abetting them in passing these things off as truth.

            •  He doesn't care about facts (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jfromga

              He just wants to prove he is more Serious than the dirty hippies on dailykos.

              "There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill."

              by bay of arizona on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:16:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, this is a serious topic on Capital Hill. (0+ / 0-)

                Segregating out the manual labor workers is one of the few "progressive" measures that gets broad support among the GOPers.

                Just maybe... the corporatists know they could lose the Tea Party Fools if they are blatant about screwing the working class.

                Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

                by vets74 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:51:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site