Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The GOP have bankrupted the country and now instead of 1 billion guys like trump now have $10 billion. And you're telling us you got to fuck us more?Wanting is irrelevant. The current system is not sustainable. Changes have to be made. And that means there will be pain and unpleasantness.No you do not raise the retirement age! Nobody wants to work till 70.Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?
With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.
On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.
So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.
Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.
We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.
The bottom line here is if we are going to have (or depend) on these social programs, we simply have to fund them. We have to increase the employee and employer contributions to these systems if we want to keep them.
Of course, that will take a huge chunk out of our paychecks and likely have an impact on our economy. But maybe then people will realize how our government programs are nothing more than a Ponzi scheme that can't be reasonably supported.
First Greece now us.
Most can't or won't live on savings alone. It's why we invented ss in the first place.Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?
With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.
On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.
So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.
Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.
We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.
Doing as you say would make SS the ponzi scheme it always was. Why not raise it to the age that someone dies. Then all the money going into SS can be spent on illegals coming across the border?
That's what it was, originally. The average life expectancy in the US did not hit 65 until 1950!
So you agree that it was always a system that it was expected that people never made a claim. WTF kind of system is that? Besides, no one can live a proper life on SS alone.
In the parlance of our times it's known as the Madoff System.So you agree that it was always a system that it was expected that people never made a claim. WTF kind of system is that? Besides, no one can live a proper life on SS alone.
Most can't or won't live on savings alone. It's why we invented ss in the first place.Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?
With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.
On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.
So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.
Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.
We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.
Doing as you say would make SS the ponzi scheme it always was. Why not raise it to the age that someone dies. Then all the money going into SS can be spent on illegals coming across the border?
That's what it was, originally. The average life expectancy in the US did not hit 65 until 1950!
So you agree that it was always a system that it was expected that people never made a claim. WTF kind of system is that? Besides, no one can live a proper life on SS alone.
We didn't do it just because we were bored one year.
Ummm.. I question the validity of that claim, if you look here --> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_07.pdf Table 19, pp 46 (CDC) link it shows average life expectancy at birth in 1935 as 61.7 years (59.9 for men, 63.9 for women) and that's life expectancy at birth your source seems to be claiming that people born far earlier than 1935 were expected to live far longer than the people born in that year.. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
Ummm.. I question the validity of that claim, if you look here --> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_07.pdf Table 19, pp 46 (CDC) link it shows average life expectancy at birth in 1935 as 61.7 years (59.9 for men, 63.9 for women) and that's life expectancy at birth your source seems to be claiming that people born far earlier than 1935 were expected to live far longer than the people born in that year.. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
Could be, but it doesn't seem logical that would be the case since one would expect that persons already at age 65 would not enjoy such a dramatic life expectancy increase versus those being born, I could understand a small incremental increase but the only logical explanation for such a large increase would be that there was a VERY small population of people alive in the U.S. who were 65 or older (which would mean that they would be largely irrelevant to the design of the program), which if true would make those numbers deceptive when talking about long term programs like Social Security. After all the program design wouldn't be for people that were already eligible it would be for people that would some day be eligible......Ummm.. I question the validity of that claim, if you look here --> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_07.pdf Table 19, pp 46 (CDC) link it shows average life expectancy at birth in 1935 as 61.7 years (59.9 for men, 63.9 for women) and that's life expectancy at birth your source seems to be claiming that people born far earlier than 1935 were expected to live far longer than the people born in that year.. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
there is a difference between the two numbers, in my opinon. At birth the life expectancy could very well be 61.7 but at 65 it could be 72. So both numbers could be right.
Could be, but it doesn't seem logical that would be the case since one would expect that persons already at age 65 would not enjoy such a dramatic life expectancy increase versus those being born, I could understand a small incremental increase but the only logical explanation for such a large increase would be that there was a VERY small population of people alive in the U.S. who were 65 or older (which would mean that they would be largely irrelevant to the design of the program), which if true would make those numbers deceptive when talking about long term programs like Social Security. After all the program design wouldn't be for people that were already eligible it would be for people that would some day be eligible......Ummm.. I question the validity of that claim, if you look here --> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_07.pdf Table 19, pp 46 (CDC) link it shows average life expectancy at birth in 1935 as 61.7 years (59.9 for men, 63.9 for women) and that's life expectancy at birth your source seems to be claiming that people born far earlier than 1935 were expected to live far longer than the people born in that year.. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
there is a difference between the two numbers, in my opinon. At birth the life expectancy could very well be 61.7 but at 65 it could be 72. So both numbers could be right.
It needs to be an opt in or opt out if it is still survive any more than a few more years. Socialist entitlement programs like that should be hand up not a handout like it is currently.Could be, but it doesn't seem logical that would be the case since one would expect that persons already at age 65 would not enjoy such a dramatic life expectancy increase versus those being born, I could understand a small incremental increase but the only logical explanation for such a large increase would be that there was a VERY small population of people alive in the U.S. who were 65 or older (which would mean that they would be largely irrelevant to the design of the program), which if true would make those numbers deceptive when talking about long term programs like Social Security. After all the program design wouldn't be for people that were already eligible it would be for people that would some day be eligible......Ummm.. I question the validity of that claim, if you look here --> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_07.pdf Table 19, pp 46 (CDC) link it shows average life expectancy at birth in 1935 as 61.7 years (59.9 for men, 63.9 for women) and that's life expectancy at birth your source seems to be claiming that people born far earlier than 1935 were expected to live far longer than the people born in that year.. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
there is a difference between the two numbers, in my opinon. At birth the life expectancy could very well be 61.7 but at 65 it could be 72. So both numbers could be right.
I think you are living on a misconception about age and how the SS system was developed. Actuary tables are not something new. They knew in 1930 what was the life expectancy of a 65 year old man and women. It isn't rocket science.
Any way here is a table from the linked site that explains it.
View attachment 53746
Social Security History
It needs to be an opt in or opt out if it is still survive any more than a few more years. Socialist entitlement programs like that should be hand up not a handout like it is currently.Could be, but it doesn't seem logical that would be the case since one would expect that persons already at age 65 would not enjoy such a dramatic life expectancy increase versus those being born, I could understand a small incremental increase but the only logical explanation for such a large increase would be that there was a VERY small population of people alive in the U.S. who were 65 or older (which would mean that they would be largely irrelevant to the design of the program), which if true would make those numbers deceptive when talking about long term programs like Social Security. After all the program design wouldn't be for people that were already eligible it would be for people that would some day be eligible......Ummm.. I question the validity of that claim, if you look here --> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_07.pdf Table 19, pp 46 (CDC) link it shows average life expectancy at birth in 1935 as 61.7 years (59.9 for men, 63.9 for women) and that's life expectancy at birth your source seems to be claiming that people born far earlier than 1935 were expected to live far longer than the people born in that year.. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
there is a difference between the two numbers, in my opinon. At birth the life expectancy could very well be 61.7 but at 65 it could be 72. So both numbers could be right.
I think you are living on a misconception about age and how the SS system was developed. Actuary tables are not something new. They knew in 1930 what was the life expectancy of a 65 year old man and women. It isn't rocket science.
Any way here is a table from the linked site that explains it.
View attachment 53746
Social Security History
no, it doesn't break the law, the law is different for Social Security, as a social program vs a for profit business.Here is some interesting information from the following site:
The original program was designed to pay retirement benefits only at age 65 and only to the covered worker, himself or herself. The selection of age 65 was a pragmatic "rule-of-thumb" decision based on two factors. First, about half of the state old-age pension systems then in operation in the United States used age 65. Second, the CES actuaries performed calculations with various ages to determine the cost impacts of setting the retirement age at various levels, and age 65 provided a reasonable actuarial balance in the system. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
The life expectancy in 1935 is not as low as many suggest, in my opinion.
This I find interesting:
Social insurance differs from private insurance in that governments employ elements of social policy beyond strict actuarial principles, with an emphasis on the social adequacy of benefits as well as concerns of strict equity for participants. Thus, in the U.S. Social Security system, for example, benefits are weighted such that those persons with lower past earnings receive a proportionately higher benefit than those with higher earnings; this is one way in which the system provides progressivity in its benefits. Such elements of social policy would generally not be permissible in private insurance plans.
So apparently SS violates the law.
The Development of Social Security in America
I understand how it was developed, however the big problem was that the development didn't (and couldn't) take into account things like the enormous post WW II baby boom or the acceleration of the life expectancy increase trend, like I said I believe the discrepancy was generated because the population of 65+ at the time was very small and the assumption was made that life expectancy at birth going forward would leave most people paying in throughout their working lives and dying before reaching an age where they could collect.I think you are living on a misconception about age and how the SS system was developed. Actuary tables are not something new. They knew in 1930 what was the life expectancy of a 65 year old man and women. It isn't rocket science.
I understand how it was developed, however the big problem was that the development didn't (and couldn't) take into account things like the enormous post WW II baby boom or the acceleration of the life expectancy increase trend, like I said I believe the discrepancy was generated because the population of 65+ at the time was very small and the assumption was made that life expectancy at birth going forward would leave most people paying in throughout their working lives and dying before reaching an age where they could collect.I think you are living on a misconception about age and how the SS system was developed. Actuary tables are not something new. They knew in 1930 what was the life expectancy of a 65 year old man and women. It isn't rocket science.
Today we have a different situation we have many more people reaching SS retirement age AND they are collecting those benefits longer, IMHO it was a short-sighted design from the get go, a long term plan would have been wiser to utilize a national 401K "style" defined contributions plan with private accounts, that way wealth could have been handed from generation to generation and nobody would lose out completely (i.e. even if you died before reaching an age to collect benefits your heirs would inherit the money you paid in to be placed in their retirement account(s)) it also wouldn't have put future tax payers on the hook to pay for previous generations.
Retirement age has already been raised. It's subtle, but it's been there since 1983
Retirement age has already been raised. It's subtle, but it's been there since 1983
One of the greatest acts of cowardice ever.
They raised the retirement age by two years, but it would not take full effect until 2022. Long, long after those bastards were all retired or dead.
And life expectancy has gone up by more than two years since then.
The retirement age should be raised to 70, and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.
On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.
Retirement age has already been raised. It's subtle, but it's been there since 1983
One of the greatest acts of cowardice ever.
They raised the retirement age by two years, but it would not take full effect until 2022. Long, long after those bastards were all retired or dead.
And life expectancy has gone up by more than two years since then.
The retirement age should be raised to 70, and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.
It needs to be an opt in or opt out if it is still survive any more than a few more years. Socialist entitlement programs like that should be hand up not a handout like it is currently.Could be, but it doesn't seem logical that would be the case since one would expect that persons already at age 65 would not enjoy such a dramatic life expectancy increase versus those being born, I could understand a small incremental increase but the only logical explanation for such a large increase would be that there was a VERY small population of people alive in the U.S. who were 65 or older (which would mean that they would be largely irrelevant to the design of the program), which if true would make those numbers deceptive when talking about long term programs like Social Security. After all the program design wouldn't be for people that were already eligible it would be for people that would some day be eligible......Ummm.. I question the validity of that claim, if you look here --> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_07.pdf Table 19, pp 46 (CDC) link it shows average life expectancy at birth in 1935 as 61.7 years (59.9 for men, 63.9 for women) and that's life expectancy at birth your source seems to be claiming that people born far earlier than 1935 were expected to live far longer than the people born in that year.. (In 1935, remaining life expectancy at age 65 was approximately 12 years for men and 14 years for women.)17
there is a difference between the two numbers, in my opinon. At birth the life expectancy could very well be 61.7 but at 65 it could be 72. So both numbers could be right.
I think you are living on a misconception about age and how the SS system was developed. Actuary tables are not something new. They knew in 1930 what was the life expectancy of a 65 year old man and women. It isn't rocket science.
Any way here is a table from the linked site that explains it.
View attachment 53746
Social Security History
Retirement age has already been raised. It's subtle, but it's been there since 1983
One of the greatest acts of cowardice ever.
They raised the retirement age by two years, but it would not take full effect until 2022. Long, long after those bastards were all retired or dead.
And life expectancy has gone up by more than two years since then.
The retirement age should be raised to 70, and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.
I agree the retirement age should be raised to 70. If you want to retire before that then that's what your 401k, pensions, and other investment plans are for.
