What would you say if we extended Social Security benefits to people 55 or older

[WCGreen]

who suddenly find themselves unemployed and also unemployable?

What if we also provided full-time status to workers willing to work only 32 hours? They would be legible for full benefits but work less hours.

What if people with two part time jobs would be able to buy into Medicare and pay a premium in order to get medical benefits?

Just a few thoughts about the future if, as many folks feel, job creation is not going to be as robust as it once was

[Extend a Hand]

1. and medicare

the cost of insure keeps many people working that might be able to otherwise afford it. I think it's a great idea and would open up jobs for young people graduating.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I am all for that.

We should be pushing for all those changes.

K&R

[Lerkfish]

3. Im all for it, since i"m close to that age and unemployed and apparently unemployable.

further, people of my generation have put in more money into social security than any other, so we probably deserve it more, if you looked at it strictly as money paid in vs. money going out.

[Vincardog]

38. I am with you Lerkfish. I have paid into SSI for over 35 years. I am to young to retire and too old

to get a job.

[SharonAnn]

41. Yes, we are the only generation that paid into SS for ourselves as well as parents and grandparents

That's how the Social Security Trust Fund was established. With the extra money that we put in for ourselves.

Unfortunately, that money was used to run the country so that great tax cuts could be giveen to high-income people and corporations.

They don't want to give the money back. I guess they think they stole it "fair and square" and so they should get to keep it.

[saracat]

4. Enthusiastially support it!

[ashling]

5. Interesting ideas

They would help me out. I am 56, and legally blind in one eye. My wife works as an adjunct government instructor for 2 local community colleges and 1 University (2 classes at each) which equates to 3 part time jobs. I was a graduate assistant until I got my MA and graduated, so now our insurance is through Cobra and I am not able to find a teaching job because of my vision issues.

[liberal N proud]

6. 58 seems to be a magical number for companies who force early retirement

Our company has had several waves in the last 10 years where they offer deals or otherwise persuade people 58 and older to retire. My dad was forced to retire at 58 (30 years ago).

It is very difficult for anyone 55 or older to get another job that pays what they were getting paid.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. People under 55 aren't going to go for a Soc Sec expansion, and rightfully so.

We already know Social Security won't be there for us. And nobody likes to fund a benefit that they themselves can never receive. Certainly nobody wants to INCREASE the cost of a benefit that they themselves will never receive.

The 32-hour workweek idea I'm not so sure on. Workers would be paid less (and hourly workers would work less - everything would be the same for salaried folk, except the lower pay) but more of us would have jobs (that pay less). I'm not certain that the benefits outweigh the negatives, but it could be an interesting discussion.

[SoCalDem]

14. A big portion of the workforce would LOVE a 32 hr workweek

since so many people have to fight like hell to get more than 20-24 hrs a week..

[Lance_Boyle]

15. Those people are going to face 16-18 hour workweeks, then.

Whatever's done on one side of the equation must be balanced on the other side...

[laughingliberal]

16. Part of the balance could be provided by the expansion of SS

I believe we would see a lot of over 55's retire and it would open jobs for others. I have seen younger people here bitch cause those old people are holding on to all the jobs and ask why the hell they don't all retire? Most still working are doing so cause they need the money.

[Lance_Boyle]

20. No doubt. But we all know Soc Sec is not something you can retire on.

So only the segment of the 55+ population that could already reasonably afford early retirement would benefit. That's sort of like taking from working Peter to give to already-able-to-independently-fund-retirement Paul.

[laughingliberal]

24. Whether it is enough to retire on or not it is all many will have

30 years of declining/stagnating wages haven't left a lot with much else. Add in several crashes in the markets over these years and even those who managed to try to put some back aren't solvent. The choices are to work forever or make do on SS. If we choose the work forever option, there's those jobs the younger generations are waiting on tied up for a lot more years.

[Lance_Boyle]

25. If people make more greeting at malwart than they would get from Soc Sec

they are not going to give up those jobs to "make do on SS." That's my only point here. Lowering Soc Sec age as an incentive for older workers to retire ONLY benefits those who can already afford to retire without additional funds from Soc Sec (before age 65).

[laughingliberal]

31. Perhaps there are people who have a little but not quite enough

Perhaps the amount of SS would be just enough extra for them to make it.

I don't expect to ever see this happen but I do know some who would retire if it did.

[WillowTree]

28. You do realize, of course....

...that, even by today's rules, the younger you are when you start to receive Social Security benefits, the less you get monthly. You get less if you retire at 62 than you do if you retire at 65 and you get less if you retire at 65 than if you retire at 70. And at that, what you get at 70 isn't all that much. So how do you figure that what people could draw if they retired at 55 would be enough for them to live on (while some inexperienced young whippersnapper tries to take over the job s/he was pushed out of)?

[Vincardog]

39. You are buying into the propaganda that Social Security won't be there for us. What happened to all

the trust funds? Wouldn't simply lifting the cap on contributions FIX the faux 'problem' forever anyway?

[Lasher]

8. I would jump for joy, with one exception.

That would be a step in the right direction (genuine health care for all), in sharp contrast with concepts such as taxing decent employee health insurance benefits.

But insofar as the Social Security benefits are concerned, I would rather see this labeled as SSI or welfare, to ensure there is a distinction between this and the retirement benefit that kicks in at age 65 or so.

[WCGreen]

23. It would be taking an early retirement.

They would still be free to take part time jobs but would have the ability to be more flexible in their professional life. This would actually work to make the workforce more professional goal oriented instead of job oriented.

[Lasher]

32. No.

Bad idea. Such a thing would reduce the monthly pension below a level that could be reasonably considered a safety net. Participation in Social Security, as a realistic safety net, should not be optional.

[WCGreen]

33. It's would be an option for people to take...

If they decide then they will live with the consequence...

So yes...

[Lasher]

36. Why not just give people an option at any age to direct SS contributions to a personal 401(k)?

It's an idea that's been had already and it's called privatization. That was a bad idea and yours is another one.

The problem with letting people live with the consequences is, the rest of us live with their consequences too. Apparently you don't think it's important for Social Security should provide a safety net. I do.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Social Security already covers the disabled. What makes a person unemployable?

Be a better idea ot offer it to people 55 years and older and forget the "unemployable" part.

What about workers whose employers will only work them for 31 hours and 59 minutes. Quite a few companies faced with providing health benefits to full time employees simply limit their hours to 39 hours a week. Setting a number of hours that way leaves the door open for abuse.

What if we opened medicare for anyone to buy into and not worry about work. I don't mean the approximatley $1,200.00 a year it costs seniors pluss deductions, etc.. (Medicare costs about 470 million a year now for the tax payer.)

[laughingliberal]

19. What's making many unemployable right now in this age group is employers will not hire them.

SSI does not solve that problem as many of them are not disabled.

[OnlinePoker]

10. And pay for it how?

SS can't even support itself now with the government ripping off every dollar put into it. If anything, it should go the other way. When the program began, only about 57% of adults made it to 65 and then the average life expectancy after that was 13.5 years. By 1990, around 77% of adults made it to 65 and life expectancy after that had increased to 17.5%. As of 2000, there were over 34.5 million Americans older than 65. This program is unsustainable without increasing the FICA taxes, something nobody wants.

[LiberalEsto]

13. Tax corporations, end the oil wars. nt

[laughingliberal]

21. First stop using it for other purposes. Then do what should already have been done and lift the cap.

I heard the President say a couple of weeks ago that SS is not in trouble now and it could be sustainable for the forseeable future by lifting the cap.

[taught_me_patience]

11. How do you propose we pay for this?

[WCGreen]

18. Over the long haul, prices would fall or people who aren't materialistic

might be able to seek jobs that are more full filling.

But again, this would be an option for workers and not mandatory.

Think of the flexibility and not the cost.

[LiberalEsto]

12. Love it!

If only...

[tonysam]

17. I am all for it. I am unemployable at 55. n/t

[Mike 03]

22. Can we throw in Medicare? I LOVE your idea, but it would probably make the national debt even

worse than the CBO projection.

With the new PayGo rules, what would we cut to pay for this?

Kick and Rec.

[WCGreen]

26. People could buy into Medicare not for the current 1.45% but at a hirer

more realistic rate.

[TexasObserver]

27. Provide them with medicare and they'll be more likely to get jobs.

The economics don't work for what you suggest, but making medicare kick in early, at age 50, would free companies from their quest to phase out those over 50 for health insurance reasons.

[mmonk]

29. Good ideas.

A much cheaper way to go and hardly difficult. Also, having persons who are a younger population will make Medicare less susceptible to being bothered by politicians and cost factor concerns. Also, over 50 and less than 65 is when the largest increases in premiums occur and people who lose their jobs in that age category have a harder time being rehired into a job with benefits in the private sector.

[tech9413]

30. That works for me

Even if I weren't a beneficiary of the change in SS I'd consider it a good first step toward UHC.
I quit working in 2002 but would love to get back to work. I have 89 y/o parents to take care of and my profession has turned into a joke. I'd work for nothing if I could mentor someone who could do what I did for another generation.

[eridani]

34. Dunno about SS expansion--that doesn't fit into the calculations

--indicating solvency for a good bit into the future. Medicare is a different matter. If there is to be less work permanently, a 32 hour week would be a good idea.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Yer crazy! We can't afford that.

We got banks to keep afloat. We got insurance companies to appease. We got agribusiness to subsidize.

And we got wars to fight.

We gots no time for welfare slackers. Buy 'em some boostraps and tell to back the fuck off.

[B Calm]

37. I turn 60 next month and would love to open up my job for a younger man.

[glitch]

40. Far too reasonable so it will never happen, and because it smacks as a "Socialist Win"

Wars are fought over that.

[L0oniX]

42. I'll vote for that ...Oh noes ...that's something I can't vote for.

:mad: