Raising retirement age will hurt poor, GAO says

[struggle4progress]

Source: Boston Globe

Associated Press / November 19, 2010

WASHINGTON — Raising the Social Security retirement age would disproportionately hurt poor and minority workers and increase disability claims by older people unable to work, government auditors told Congress.

The projected spike in disability claims could harm Social Security’s finances because disability benefits are typically higher than early retirement payments, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

The report, obtained by the Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release today, provides fodder for those opposed to raising the eligibility age for benefits, as proposed by President Obama’s deficit commission.

“There’s more to consider than simply how much money the program would save by raising the retirement age,’’ said Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. The report shows an unequal effect on certain groups, he said yesterday, and many “would have little choice but to turn to the broken disability program.’’ ...

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/11/19/raising_retirement_age_will_hurt_poor_gao_says/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Top+political+stories

[billlll]

1. age 45 retire, Turkey: 58 in Bolivia

We are not told this very often.

[liberalmike27]

44. Par for the course I guess

The poor, with tough outside jobs more likely to die, or need it earlier. In Europe, I've heard, if you have a tough job you'll get it earlier.

Once again though, Social Security isn't a problem with the debt, as it has 2.6 Trillion in the hole that we collected from the poorest people in full, to pay out SS insurance. The rich congressmen want to default on that debt to the general fund they've used to give tax cuts to the richest, i.e., themselves.

[avaistheone1]

54. The big corporations don't want you once you are 45+

What are people to do to support themselves for the next 25 years while they wait for Social Security?

[valerief]

65. Alan Grayson told us. Die quickly. That's the Republican plan. nt

[Honeycombe8]

55. But....I don't think they have much standard of living in those countries...

or much of an economy for the middle class. So....I don't know that that's a fair comparison.

Canada, Britain, France...those are other industrialized western countries like America.

[TBF]

71. Turkey has a life expectancy of 71.9 yrs - while the US is 78.4

Really not that great of a difference, yet they retire so much earlier.

[glitch]

77. Expect the US rate to decline over the next decade.

Obesity will take its toll, it's already starting.

[TBF]

82. True - obesity, poverty, lack of access to medical care, etc... nt.

[glitch]

91. The physical and emotional stress of being cold and homeless, not getting enough good quality food.

I was thinking of obesity as a problem from the last few decades showing up now in the trends. But you are correct, these more recent assaults to our system will have a much more immediate effect.

We're probably already "second-world" wonder when we hit "third".

[Honeycombe8]

88. The standard of living has to roughly equate, to compare the two, IMO.

There are too many other things that are so very different, to compare Turkey and the U.S. for just about anything.

For all you know, they get too sickly to work much longer, or most of their work is blue collar (without safety regulations or laws to protect them), so they can't work much past 45. Maybe not. But who knows?

I think Brazil is a pretty bad economy for the average person. At least what I've seen in movies and documentaries (but admittedly that's not much).

[athena]

97. I am always amazed.

I am amazed at people who make pronouncements about topics they clearly know nothing about.

I am sorry, but do you know anything about safety regulations in Turkey? Have you ever been to Turkey? Do you realize that Turkey is not a third-world country? Has it ever occurred to you that posting random statements about a country you know nothing about can be insulting to the people of that country?

I assume you are an American. It might interest you to know that many Turks in Turkey make disparaging and ill-informed statements about the U.S. For example, many of them don't believe that the U.S. is a democracy. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them feel also that the laws in the U.S. don't protect workers. That shouldn't bother you, though, since you feel comfortable making similarly disparaging and ill-informed statements about Turkey.

Of course, it is completely reasonable to expect that a country with poor safety regulations and few laws to protect workers would have a retirement system in place to begin with. :eyes:

In any case, the claim that the retirement age in Turkey is 45 is highly misleading. The new system in Turkey is extremely complicated. Not everybody retires at 45. As far as I can tell based on some internet research, it is only people who started working before 1999 and were less than 2 years from retirement in 2002 and worked a total of 25 years and started working at the age of 20 who can retire with full benefits at 45. Most other people, as far as I can tell, still retire at 58 or 60 or older.

I don't know as much about Bolivia as I do about Turkey, but I do know that it's a socialist country. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that they don't have laws protecting their workers.

One of the most important things that hold Americans back is this deeply-held and unquestioned belief that they are so much better off than everyone else.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[littlewolf]

4. and the longer I have to work before I can retire

the longer before someone can do my job ...

[Mark D.]

63. Exactly!

Why I support an idea partially based on what Kucinich proposed. Lower retirement to 60 immediately. No graduated age for different benefits. 60 for everyone. I ad to that, increase retirement benefits by 50%. This could all be done, and paid for, by eliminating the upper income level cap, and then making the SS tax more progressive. Maybe eliminate the benefit for those making over a million a year, once what they paid into the system is paid back, with modest interest. This would cause a new 'giant sucking sound' of employees leaving the workforce. The corporate elite powers that be (as Carlin said, the 'real owners') don't want that.

It would lower unemployment to 2%. Jobs would be so easy to find. The economy would explode. 50% more disposable income for tens of millions who are retired and not rich, who like the middle class who'd flood in to take those jobs (and also have more disposable income) would cause stunning economic growth. We could grow our way out of the deficit, especially if the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket were allowed to expire. This of course would solve too many problems, and 'they' don't want that. So the struggle will continue, and idiocy like attempts to privatize and cut benefits (the exact opposite of what we need) will go on as they'd hope for.

[Sherman A1]

5. Really?

I wonder if the Catfood commission really even cares about the intent of any program it looked upon.

[CTyankee]

31. Yep, that was my response. They don't care or they don't know what they'retalking about or both.

But they'd prolly say, "Well, they can get another job sitting at a desk..." Yeah, like where?

[Sirveri]

75. They do it to crunch numbers, not look at overall social effect.

They also want to make the Smithsonian a pay per access museum, all to save 0.3B measly dollars.

[inna]

6. Of course, it will. That is the 'goal'.

The political "debate" in this country is beyond disgusting; it is just pure and unadulterated class warfare, and they don't even bother to hide it at this point.

:nuke:

[Quantess]

8. My thoughts exactly.

There is defeintely an element that, when gets validation that something would hurt the poor, says "Perfect! Keep going in that direction!"

[fasttense]

15. It is amazing that all of the talk is about raising the retirement age and not about

increasing the revenue. Why do people that make more than One Hundred Six Thousand only pay SS taxes on that amount? Anyone that makes more than that is exempt from SS taxes on the rest of what they make.

So tell me again why people like Bill Gates, Eric Cantor, John Bone-er Mitch McConnell, and the Walton's (Wal-Mart) only to name a few have to pay taxes on the first $106,000? You get a tax break by virtue of being very very rich? Or why you should be able to pass on Billions to your kids tax free? Sure doesn't sound very fair to me?

After all we should raise the retirement age to, what a 100, to make sure you lazy, lowlife working stiffs never see a dime of what YOU have paid into the system? We have to raise the age at which you retire because the wealthy live longer than the working man/woman. Oh sure thats really fair.

The article never mentions that Raygun raised the retirement age and doubled the taxes in 1983 because of the Baby Boomer's, so you have been paying double for your SS for the past 30 years. But you do not deserve any of it !!!

Class Warfare is EXACTLY RIGHT !!!

[zbdent]

28. add to your list the Coors family,

and Scaife ...

[Sirveri]

76. Actually the commission recommended raising that rate as well.

They also floated the idea of totally uncapping the SSDI portion of FICA taxes.

[DBoon]

35. I'm now convinced this is deliberate

These people actually sit around and try to figure out the most effective ways to make poor people even more miserable.

[JDPriestly]

7. K&R

I have pointed this out many times. About 50% of people over 65 are disabled. I suspect that does not reflect all of us who suffer from diseases that do not debilitate us but do slow us down -- like arthritis, loss of balance, hearing loss, diabetes that is still under control, high blood pressure (that diminishes our ability to handle stress), fatigue (needing naps), etc.

I once worked with a man in his early 50s, a number of years my junior even at the time, who I found asleep at his desk probably about 60% of the times that I went into his office to discuss work with him. He was ready to retire even then and that was quite a few years ago. We age at different rates.

Our Social Security benefits are not high enough to provide an incentive for anyone who is capable of working and can find a job to quit work. They are just barely subsistence -- averaging about $1200 per month. That's just barely enough to pay medical co-pays and the extras you have to pay to get Medicare coverage, food, housing including utilities and heat and transportation. Unless they have saved a lot of money or have a sizable pension beyond Social Security, people do not retire until they absolutely have to.

We should lower the age for retirement, not raise it.

[CTyankee]

32. I have a dear friend who is a plumber. At age 60 bothhis knees are shot.

Luckily, because he is in a union he has been utilyzed to conduct safety seminars to fellow union plumbers at sites in the northeast. He is useful and helpful to the younger plumbers and being spared a lot of the more intensely physical labor, altho he still has to do some of that...

[Enthusiast]

9. Duh...K&R

Rein in the MIC. Tax the billionaires.

[pattmarty]

25. And, end the wars. That would balance the budget AND we could.....

..........have Medicare for all (with no goddamn co-pays) and lower the SS FULL retirement age to 60. Then the whole world would hear ALL Americans cheering, USA, USA, USA!!!!!!

[lbrtbell]

10. That's the idea--to force people to apply for disability

Social Security and Medicare are guaranteed-acceptance programs. Disability, on the other hand, is VERY hard to get. It involves lawyers, court appearances, bureaucratic red tape, and sadistic administrative law judges whose greatest pleasure is saying no to a disabled person who desperately needs money to live.

The "advantage" of forcing people to apply for disability is that very few of them will be accepted, which means less money spent by the government.

There has to be a special place in hell for all these people who hate the poor and disabled. :mad:

[pattmarty]

26. I just we could fill that "special place in hell" up quicker so the rest.......

......of us could live decent lives. I think the biggest reason for our current problems (among many problems) is plain & simple GREED. The people that have too much already, want even fucking more.

[glitch]

78. There's no special place in Hell, Hell is filled with them. They make up its majority constituents.

Sorry for the unnecessary and gratuitous quibble.

[myrna minx]

11. Isn't that the true endgame? Work the poor to death?

:puke: That some Democrats consider this ok makes me sick.

[laughingliberal]

48. +1 nt

[tavalon]

12. We really need a "Duh" forum

[Gormy Cuss]

43. Great idea.

It could be a place to post Captain Obvious revelations.

[tclambert]

13. GAO also reports "Water is wet."

That is all.

[Moostache]

61. That was a classic GAO report...also contained the following gems:

Tax cuts create jobs (in ALL cases)...

You cannot raise taxes in a weak economy.
You cannot raise taxes in a recovering economy.
You cannot raise taxes in a normal economy.
You cannot raise taxes in a strong economy.
You cannot raise taxes in a roaring economy.
You cannot raise taxes in a box, you cannot raise taxes with a fox...
YOU CANNOT RAISE TAXES SAM I AM!!!

Iraqi people will greet us as liberators - you know like those damn ingrates in France did!

Wire tapping and spying on citizens is vital to national security.

America is a "Christian Nation".

Evolution is in 'controversy'.

Climate Change is a hoax.
Climate Change is a myth.
Climate Change is too big to stop anyway, so doing anything is "raising taxes" (and SAM I AM taught us that is sick bird...ill-eagle....not gonna do it...)

And all of that was found in the abstract for the GAO report....the rest was too informative to recount here.

[glitch]

79. lorl! nt

[Turbineguy]

14. Gee, I wonder if

simplistic solutions to complex problems work well.:sarcasm:

[cornermouse]

16. I don't think they care.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. They don't care. None of them care. NONE OF THEM CARE!

:argh:

[spicegal]

17. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

I used to do case management for worker's comp. All my cases involved people who did manual labor. Generally, by at least midway into their 50', this group of workers start to fall apart. They get injured more easily and take forever to recover, and some don't. They're generally not as well educated and often don't lead very healthy lifestyles, which only further exacerbates the problem. They don't have transferrable job skills. So anyone who thinks raising the retirement age is a fool. A significant number of these people will never make it that long. They'll either be in the street or end up on disability. People in Congress are out of touch if they think that's a viable solution.

[pattmarty]

27. They're out of touch because every goddamn one of them is a.............

...........fucking millionaire or soon to become one. Look at Palin, she's in it STRICTLY for the fucking money.

[northernlights]

18. well that's easy to fix. just end disability. they're just a bunch of deadbeats anyway, right?

buncha useless eaters. throw'em out. :sarcasm: for the sarcasm-impaired.

[DailyGrind51]

19. Seriously, how many employers are hiring 50-year-olds anymore?

No one wants us, even with multiple university degrees!

[laylah]

24. +1000! nt

[klook]

20. Well, duh - meanwhile, John Bonehead

thinks the retirement age should be 70.

As an article on Daily Kos points out, "Not enough jobs PLUS more people seeking employment EQUALS higher unemployment."

Again - well, duh.

As Sen. Mark Warner (a proponent of more cat food for the elderly poor), says, "This is just math." Yes it is, and the poor will be crunched by the numbers.

[laughingliberal]

49. Yeah, Mark. Here's some more math. End the tax cuts for the rich and 2 wars and we're flush. nt

[liberal N proud]

21. Who needs to retire anyway - Right?

We can just slave away until we die.

:sarcasm:

[chidy]

22. slavery?

or revolution. or war.

those are the choices being foisted upon us by the global elite. not just here, but everywhere. i'd like us to be more open and blunt about this.

[druidqueen]

45. Retirement??? What's that?

I have it all figured out. I've been telling everyone for years that I will be able to retire ten years after I die. ... AND NOT A MOMENT BEFORE then!!:grr: :grr: :grr:

[33Greeper]

23. This is what you get

when you vote Repukes in. Their constituency is the monied class, not you and me. Will we ever have guillotines and storming gated communities with torches and pitchforks?

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. Yes well the cat food commission is Obama's brillant idea and he filled it

with known haters of SS/Medicare. Nice, eh? :puke:

[Deep13]

29. I read about this finding in Duh! magazine. nt

[melm00se]

30. any change to almost any government

program will have the most impact the poor.

[groundloop]

33. File under DUHHH, but K&R nonetheless

Here's another duhhhhh revelation for those geniuses..... remove the social security tax cap for thos making over $106,000 and then social security will be solvent forver (instead of the projected 25 years before it sees a defecit now).

[DebJ]

34. Poor die younger, rich live longer, THEY get all of the SSI

just like everything else.

[gibby2433]

36. This is because the people making these recommendations don't know what "work" is

They assume "workers" are people in khakis and Gap shirts sitting in cubicles all day, so why not make them sit there for a few more years? They have no idea what it will mean for people to have to do manual labor until they're 70 years old. I'm still in shock that this lunatic proposal is getting so much traction. Oh wait, no I'm not, because our hallowed media are just shills for these conglomerates who want us to work until we literally drop dead. But this article makes clear they haven't used much long-term thinking about it, just slash now and worry later.

So, you know what? Now I say, "Let 'em do it!" And we'll all wait until we're 65 then claim disability. All of us! And watch their friggin' fat heads spin.

[MedicalAdmin]

72. Sure we'll APPPPPLLLLY for disability...

but we won't get it.

Have you ever tried to apply for it. I have. It's been 3 years and many appeals running. And so far - nothing. And yes, I have a very good lawyer and a rock solid case.

Understand this. They want to get us off the SS list and then they will claim that if we had a problem with working for a living (because we are all lazy librul bastards who think we deserve something for nothing, dontcha know?) then we are already covered with disability.

This is the same argument they currently use to justify our lack of a coherent health care system. You can always go to the emergency room. It is free and available to anyone at any time. Voila - problem solved.

[gibby2433]

89. Oh, I didn't realize it was so tough to get disability...

nevermind. :) On to plan B...

[AllyCat]

37. Who woulda thunk it?

[jeaps]

38. I'm still not sure

why the most logical fix for Social Security is overlooked. As has been demonstrated, people with higher incomes do tend to live longer due to less physically stressing jobs and the better health care their higher income affords them. The way to "fix" SS is to raise the income caps. Why it is capped at $106K is beyond me. To make up for their longer time on SS, the higher income folks should have more of their income subject to SS tax.

[laughingliberal]

50. Work is punished. That is the message to counter the Repig rhetoric about "punishing success."

Too bad we don't have many on our side willing to point this out.

[barbtries]

39. just work til you die.

just work, and work, and work, and then die.

[Love Bug]

40. Shhhhh,,,,, don't tell them that cuz that's the goal...

[xchrom]

41. mr. clue called in on the obvious phone, i see. nt

[old mark]

42. Link to Wiki Retirement article-there is a comparison of retirement ages for Europe, USA

part way down the page. Most countries early retirement age is 60, with full benefits at 65 or 66.

To force people to work longer is a terrible idea - many of us have had medical problems for years prior to reaching even "early" retirement age, and many simply have no desire to continue to work at jobe that are uninteresting or even dangerous. I retired just before my 60th birthday - my pension is quite small, as is my social security which I got at age 62, but it is enought when combined with the money we had put aside.

Unfortunately, many people are nearly broke as they approach retirement age,a nd have little "extra" put aside, so the time of life that should be enjoyable becomes a stressed out misery. This is not right.


mark

[Stuckinthebush]

46. The GOP and their subsidiary "Tea Party" don't care

Their constituents are the rich and those who think they are rich or think they will be rich.

The Dems need to constantly shout from the rooftop - "The GOP doesn't care about you! Hey, you. Yes, you! The guy making 125K a year. You aren't rich!"

[fencesitter]

47. and the poor don't vote

mostly.

[davidwparker]

51. Is it that difficult to raise SS cap to say, 125K, while the

boomers are still on the planet?

[ProudDad]

64. I'd take the cap OFF and lower the percentage withheld...

Also, since most employers no longer have any reasonable pension plan, I'd put an employers tax in for businesses grossing more than $10,000,000 as well...

Then I would invest the excess S.S. money, the "trust fund" that isn't now, in capitalizing local banks to provide seed money for relocalized steady state economies...

This Ponzi scheme laughingly termed a capitalist "economy" won't last through this century -- and shouldn't!

[Honeycombe8]

56. I think this is coming, regardless. But if it's for younger people...

they have decades to prepare for it and know what's coming. As long as they don't change the "deal" for those age 50 (or even 45) and older. It's really too late for those folks to make other plans.

But someone who's 30, there's time to save more, change careers even, make plans.

Otherwise, isn't there a risk that SS will be unavailable for large groups of people?

I just hope raising the retirement age 2 years is enough, w/o having to cut benefits, too.

[laughingliberal]

57. They are affecting current recipients and all future recipients with this.

Cooking the CPI's to hide the real cost of living for older Americans will mean the COLA's which already do not keep up with the real cost of living, let alone the cost of health care, are guaranteed to keep pushing people into poverty. If the CPI's used to determine COLA's had been reflecting the real cost of living since the 'tweaks' in the 80's, SS payments would be 40% higher than they are now.

BTW, this is also one of the factors in keeping wages down. Employers can give inadequate salary increases and claim they are keeping up with inflation.

This is a bad plan for anyone who works for a living.

[Honeycombe8]

58. Raising the retirement age & cutting benefits is different from COLA.

That's a whole different thing.

In the laws and regs, the benefits and retirement ages are set out. In different sections the COLA is covered. That second thing won't change. It's the first that is being discussed.

I see what you're saying...you disagree w/how the COLA is handled, the formula they use, and you are saying they're changing the formula or changing the base numbers that the formula uses. Maybe. But that is a totally different thing than what is being discussed to make SS solvent. What YOU are talking about has ALWAYS been an issue with SS, even 50 years ago. It is what it is.

I'm just pointing out that if the rules are changed for young people, at least they have time to make plans. Bush was trying to change SS for people under 54 or 55. That would've been a real hardship for millions; a 50 year old just doesn't have time to prepare for a different retirement, when the rules have been changed on him. He can't change careers, really; can't save a WHOLE lot more money. But someone who is 30 has more options, is all.

I hope they don't have to change anything. But I think it's coming. I just hope it's only for younger people.

[ProudDad]

62. I was a computer professional and between windoze and the mouse

I became physically and mentally unable to continue my career.

In addition, I cannot do the 60 hour weeks that most employers demand of their programmer/analysts...

In addition, after I hit 45 years of age over 2 decades ago no employer would even FUCKING INTERVIEW ME! I had "too much experience" or didn't know the "technology" they were hiring for -- another lie to disguise age discrimination...

In the Early 2000s I had 2 last jobs. The first one took 150 resumes and contacts to get ONE interview - of COURSE I got the job...which was outsourced to India less than 2 years later.

The next took over 300 resumes and contacts over a 1 1/2 YEAR period to get ONE interview - of COURSE I got the job -- which was outsourced to Redmond, WA in less than 2 years.

Now the RSIs and intense impatience with windoze (the shittiest operating system I've worked with over the last 46 years of computer experience) have made it impossible for me to work as a computer programmer/consultant.

You are assuming that people have a "choice" in their careers...or that there's such a THING as a "career" for most people now days. Thanks to outsourcing, decimation of the manufacturing and crafts sectors and over-exploitation of the working class for the IMMENSE wealth transfer to the top over the last 35 years, the odds of someone have a career in ANY occupation as my grandfather and father had have essentially disappeared. No matter WHAT "choices" a 30 year old makes the exploitative corporate capitalist system has other ideas and they DON'T include job security!

Check my post downthread. We HAVE to change our thinking about jobs and work and careers and the "economy" and the Class War (you know, the one we're losing)... Trying to slap band-aids on a Ponzi Scheme of an "economic" and "social" system that's going to kill the planet is a tremendous waste of time...

[Honeycombe8]

86. Sorry to hear of what happened to you. I know there is age discrimination.

I have tried to tell others, but they think I'm being pessimistic. They clearly haven't had to go on an interview in years (the ones over 50). I have a good job, but I did go on a few interviews in the last 10 years, just to see what's out there. I'm over 50. I could see very clearly that my age was a big problem for employers (despite that I'm healthy and look younger than my years). When I interviewed in my younger days, I almost always got hired immediately. Things changed when I got older. Same person, more experience, same interviewing skills, same field. But I was older.

I do disagree with your belief that younger people don't have career choices. They are more limited than they used to be. And they've changed. But they certainly have career choices that a 50 year old doesn't have. Which was my point.

Your statement about job security is one of those things that a 30 year old can do something about, that a 50 year old cannot. A 30 year old can make a choice to enter a field where there IS more job security than in another field. You didn't have to think much about that in your younger days, and whether I had to or not, I didn't really. But I recall thinking about having multiple skills so that I could do more than one thing for a living (I grew up in a union town and saw people destroyed when they lost their job at the local plants...they didn't know how to do anything other than that specialty they did at that plant.)

Computer programming IS secure, IF you work at the right place. You were just too old to change either careers or employers (in the view of the employers). A 30 year old isn't too old.

Maybe that's something a young person should do...make sure he can do TWO things for a living. Of course, we all can, in the sense that we can wait tables, etc. But only young people. Old people won't get hired to bus tables or be a waiter, probably. Which is my point. Young people can make plans, and then change those plans, if necessary. People over 45 probably won't be able to do that.

[JJ]

84. LOL

Why didn't I think of that, change careers to an easier, higher paying job, I should have done that when I was 30.

Do they pay you to post idiocy like this?

[Honeycombe8]

87. No wonder you didn't get a better job, if that's the best you can do for a substantive post.

Get out your high school English book, and read again how to write a paragraph on a subject.

First sentence should contain the thought of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph should contain the meat, the details, about the substance that you stated in the first sentence. (Alternately, you can start with the details, and end with a summary sentence. This is often used in fiction, for instance.)

Now, I guess you see why YOU didn't make the right career choices.

But to clarify, and reiterate...YES, a 30 year old has career choices that a 50 year old does not.

Let's say that again, so it'll sink in: A 30 year old has career choices that a 50 year old does not.

A 30 year old has 20 years before he hits 50. 20 years of trying out jobs, cities, spouses, whatever.

Now, go back and read my post again. You will see that I never said the 30 year old could change to a higher paying job. He could, of course. Most people can, when they're 30. But that's not the only consideration. Job security is another consideration. Where you live is another consideration.

People have to learn that they may have to MOVE to where the good, higher paying jobs are. They may have to make hard decisions of changing their fields, to higher paying or more secure fields. These are things that a 30 year old can do, that a 50 year old probably cannot do.

Got it? I knew that you could.

[eilen]

94. You are spouting RW talking points.

The other poster had a point. So what if you are 30? No one has a crystal ball. Maybe next year your job will get outsourced or given to your new 32 year old manager's 22 year old clueless niece for half the pay and none of the benefits as a "seasonal temp" and some one here can tell you that maybe you should have seen it coming and diversified yourself a bit more. Meanwhile the 22 y/o has a good 60 years left to work for $10 hr if she is lucky and doesn't get dumped from her job at 50. But that was okay with you since she has more time to "plan."

Man plans, God laughs.

[Honeycombe8]

95. No, I'm not. I'm not right wing, and I'm telling you my life story.

I have been very poor. Very poor. At a point in my younger days, I realized that it was up to me to provide a decent living for myself.

I made the hard decisions that I speak of. I packed up a U-haul, and drove to a new city all by myself, to where the jobs were. Oh, and I was pregnant. It was very hard those first two years.

You do what you have to do to earn a living. Every adult has to earn a living and provide for himself/herself.

I learned how to actually DO something that someone would pay me to do. People laughed at me, when I did it. Literally. I was standing in a nightclub w/my then boyfriend, when we mentioned I was leaving town for a few months to go to a national paralegal school (it was accredited by the American Bar Association). Laughter broke out from the people at the table, and they said it was like going to an ambassador school. Imagine...I'm standing there, while about 12 people are laughing at my plans to try to better myself. (I had dropped out of college...long story.)

I got a low-paying paralegal job when I got out of school. It was in the 1980's, and my salary was $900/month gross. I persevered. Stayed at a job I hated, in order to build a decent job history. Got married. Marriage didn't work. By then my salary was a whopping $1,200/month gross, and I was supporting the deadbeat husband, as well as paying a mortgage, buying food...and my work clothes consisted of three skirts I got at Wal-Mart, and two tops to interchange among the skirts. I had had one dress from before, but it got torn.

We were in the Reagan recession. Hated my job and marriage. I would never make enough money in that small town to support myself decently. I went to the public library and researched nearby cities, the economy, the jobs there, the cost of the living in those places. I narrowed it down to Houston and Dallas. Dallas was better off financially at that time.

I sent out resumes to law firms in Dallas. Lots of 'em. I got 2 responses. I arranged interviews. I drove to Dallas. Stayed in the cheapest motel I could find. It took my last $5 to pay the parking fee to go to one of those interviews. I got the job.

I drove back home (a 7 hour drive in an old car). To cut to the chase, I packed up a U-Haul, got a cheap apartment over the phone, and drove to Dallas to start my new life. It was very hard. Very. I rode the bus to work. Sometimes they kept me til late at night. It was dangerous and scary standing downtown at a bus stop at night all by myself. One time a dangerous looking guy kept strolling in front of me, back and forth. The bus came just in the nick of time. Another time....I had my miscarriage at work in the bathroom, after hours, and rode the bus home at night with gobs of toilet paper stuck between my legs. Not long after that, I had just cashed my paycheck, when three guys came up to me and snatched my purse, that contained every penny in the world that I had. Add to this an ex-husband that took what little property we had, and mean bosses.

It was very hard. But it was necessary. I had to better my financial situation. It is many years later, and you would probably be jealous of my financial situation now. I own a home. I paid it off. I have an old car that is paid off. I earn a higher salary than most. I have a large 401K. But I did it all myself, and I sacrificed much to do it. No one helped me. I persevered when others laughed at me, said I'd never amount to anything.

I have never been on a vacation where I went somewhere for fun. I spend my vacations piddling around the house, doing home projects, or traveling back to my home state to visit family.

The money I would've spent on vacations...went into a savings account, so I'd have a buffer, if I should lose my job.

I was able to turn my financial situation and my future around because I was about 30 years old. I wouldn't be able to do that now. There isn't enough time, and not many people would want to hire me.

If you're 30, the world is your oyster. You have something that older people do not have: time.

[eilen]

93. I don't think you should be so quick to sell out the young.

We should be planning to make the world better for them, not worse.

[Honeycombe8]

96. In what way do you think I'm quickly selling out the young?

I quite clearly state that I hope the retirement age doesn't have to be raised, but if it is, I hope they don't do that to those 45 or older, simply because they don't have the TIME that 30 year olds have to make adjustments.

That is a plea for not harming older people. Not a plea for "quickly selling out the young." What a way to view my position.

The retirement age is plenty old right now. I don't WANT to see it raised. Okay? But if it is, by our lawmakers, then I hope they have the decency to do it ONLY for those who have the time to make adjustments.

[ProudDad]

59. Work is good. Jobs SUCK!

I'm really trying to raise awareness that useful, productive, socially useful WORK is a good thing. Most people who perform such useful work can continue doing it to very advanced "ages" since the joy and satisfaction that such work gives the worker in return helps ameliorate the aging process...

Jobs, on the other hand, are slavery. A "job" in common parlance usually means work performed for MUCH longer hours at tasks that either have NO useful social purpose (finance and international banking along with building war toys spring to mind) or are mindless drone tasks designed to pump up the gross which in a capitalist system pumps up the net profit.

Younger people should be the ones who do the physically demanding work required. Older folks (like me) can still contribute our experience, teaching skills, mentoring and find other less physically demanding tasks to take on.

Of course, a non-capitalist world, with reLOCALized steady state economies producing useful goods and services and sized to fit their local economies would result in MUCH shorter "work days" to do the necessary work leaving MANY more hours for people to follow their passions and connect with their families and communities. Such a setup would also result in better mental health and fewer diseases -- less of a requirement for drugs and Sick Care.

It's the system of industrial/capitalist exploitation we suffer under, the system of enclosing the Commons in order to keep people in slavery that's at fault.

Social Security was instituted as a band-aid to try to soften some of the most egregious effects of aging -- to allow the vast majority of us oldsters who didn't hit the jackpot in the capitalist lottery (Ponzi scheme) to subsist instead of starve...

[defendandprotect]

60. We should be increasing Social Security benefits, not whittling away at them ...!!

Who would even question that -- ??

[katandmoon]

66. And Obama's response to the GAO? ::: crickets :::

[laughingliberal]

73. Yes. We have to make tough choices. "We" being anyone who doesn't have millions at their disposal.

N/M

[fascisthunter]

67. they don't give a shit about the poor or anyother American except for themselves

all cowards

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. No shit.

[craigmatic]

69. It'll hurt minorities overall. Why not raise taxes instead of the retirement age? Am I the only one

who doubts the problem really exists?

[killbotfactory]

70. I look forward to paying into social security all my life and dieing before the age of retirement

Low wages = shitty healhcare = abnormal stress = early death.

You're welcome rich people!

[lovuian]

74. this is a weapon aimed at the elderly and it disgusts me

it disgusts me when we have been losing two wars over 8 years and bailed out the banksters

now they are just going to get the money from the elderly soldiers children and students

[glitch]

80. They are despicable.

There is no way around it.

[WestSeattle2]

81. Social Security should be based on work-years; 40 work-years

(or 83,200 hours) required to draw full benefits. Generally speaking, those with high school diplomas or less, pursue blue-collar, labor-intensive work. They should not be required to work until 70. Assuming they start work at 18, they'll meet the 83,200 hour threshold at age 58. Any periods of unemployment would have to be added on though; so many would not meet the 83,200 hour threshold until age 60 or later. (How many of us make it 40 years without being laid-off at least once?) Those with graduate and post-graduate degrees may have to work until age 65 or 70 - depending on what age they start work. Again, they'll have to meet the 83,200 hour requirement, so if they don't start employment until age 25, they'll have to make it up on the other end. That said, those holding degrees generally end up in less labor-intensive professions, making it much easier to work into their late 60's early 70's. Reduced benefits could start for all at 72,800 hours. Or, during times when we need to create jobs for younger workers, we could offer full SS benefits at the 72,800 hour threshold.

Just a thought.

[Honeycombe8]

92. I somewhat agree, but the hour requirement doesn't make sense.

Because I have worked a lot of overtime the last 10 years, does that mean I can now retire early? That doesn't make sense to me.

And penalizing someone who gets an advanced education doesn't make sense. The country should WANT people to get an advanced education; it raises the country's intellectual work product and competitive edge. We wouldn't want people NOT going to college so they can start work early so they can retire early.

Although I think most people with advanced degrees tend to work past full retirement age, anyway. They tend to be workaholics and love their work, so, like doctors, may cut back on hours and such, but continue working well into their 70's or beyond.

As for the hours, I don't think taht would work because, one thing is, everyone would have to punch a time clock. That's not gonna happen. And one hour of work in one field does not equal one hour of work in another field. The work can't be gauged by time alone.

It would work better if, like something that's being discussed now in Congress, raising the retirement age for younger folks, EXCEPT excluding those in certain blue collar occupations. It'd be interesting to see if they include hotel maids in that "blue collar" exception category; I can't imagine many jobs harder on a woman's back than bending over all day making beds.

[Zoeisright]

83. Every god damned thing the repukes want to do will hurt the poor.

Cut Medicaid. Check
Cut Social Security. Check
Refuse to extend unemployment. Check
Cut 'entitlement' programs. Check
Repeal health care. Check

The only people who aren't SACRIFICING in all this is the rich.

[DeadEyeDyck]

85. I should be able to retire at any age I want...

and draw my social security based on some nominal compound interest. What if I am a minority, as I am, and know my life expectancy is 15 years less than whitey, why should I have to wait until I am dead to retire?

[WestSeattle2]

90. So using derogatory racial names is acceptable to you?