Spin Meter: Despite Obama's warning, ...

Spin Meter: Despite Obama's warning, Social Security checks could flow absent a debt deal

There are 170 comments on the The Washington Post story from Jan 15, 2013, titled Spin Meter: Despite Obama's warning, Social Security checks could flow absent a debt deal. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

No one doubts dire things will happen, and fast, if the government runs out of borrowing authority in coming weeks.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#84 Jan 16, 2013
Armo wrote:
<quoted text>
Drama FAIL. Raising the SS age 5 years is still far earlier than the average age of death. If you want to retire at a leisurely 62 or 65, yes pay for it your damn self.
The current retirement age is 67 for everyone born after 1960. Raising it by 5 years means everyone working until they are 72.

The average life expectancy for men is 76. I wouldn't consider 4 years to be "far earlier".

While it may be possible for office workers and other cushy jobs to keep working until age 72, the average person doing manual labor jobs- construction, farming, etc will simply drop dead before ever having a chance to retire. Not suprisingly those are the same people LEAST likely to be able to afford to retire without social security.

If that's the plan, then we need to allow certain categories of workers to completly opt out of social security and get back whatever they've already paid into the system, since obviously they won't get a penny from social security in retirement- being they'll be dead long before that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#85 Jan 16, 2013
Armo wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflecting the problem onto "the rich" isn't gonna help save SS. What I proposed will.
Why not raise the retirement age to 150, then social security will be solvent forever?
guess who

Mountain Home, AR

#87 Jan 17, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Social Security and medicare are self funded and not constricted by the budget or lack of budge as is the case. SSI for illegals, ACORN, Money to bankrupt green companies and Obama spending 7 milllion on vacations is what can be cut or not paid. We have plenty of money to pay our DEBT, but not to wasted it funding terrorist organizations and golf outing.
Thanks to Obamas payroll tax holiday the social security witholding ws reduced from about 7% to 4%. As a result social security ran in the red in 2011. Smart move to reduce funding just when record numbers of baby boomers are just starting to retire.
Armo

Miami, FL

#88 Jan 17, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing the cap on contributions would save it without forcing people to work until 70 or whatever arbitrary age you want them to work to. But your kind seem to prefer cutting taxes and responsibilities for the rich while piling them onto ordinary working people. That's why you're a Republican.
I'm not a Republican. I'm a realist. More has been promised to today's retirees than today's retirees have paid into the system. That is fact. If you're hoping the rich will magically make up the shortfall for you, then you're moronic.
Armo

Miami, FL

#89 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's the plan, then we need to allow certain categories of workers to completly opt out of social security and get back whatever they've already paid into the system, since obviously they won't get a penny from social security in retirement- being they'll be dead long before that.
Everyone younger than 35 should be allowed to opt out of SS, because the plan is to pay today's retirees more than they paid into the system by taking taxes from today's workers and being insolvent when today's workers are retirement age.
Armo

Miami, FL

#90 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not raise the retirement age to 150, then social security will be solvent forever?
Why not make it measly 5 and stop with the drama and save SS?
Armo

Miami, FL

#91 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The current retirement age is 67 for everyone born after 1960. Raising it by 5 years means everyone working until they are 72.
The average life expectancy for men is 76. I wouldn't consider 4 years to be "far earlier".
About half the workforce is female. And SS was designed only to keep the working poor from spending the last 4 years of their lives working. It was intended as a social welfare program. It was not designed to provide 10-15 years worth of cushy retirement to middle class folks. There's a big difference.
Armo

Miami, FL

#92 Jan 17, 2013
Even increasing the retirement age by just 2 years is a huge step towards long-term sustainability. Those advocating no increase in the retirement are selfish individuals uncaring for today's workers and the future's retirees. They paid less into the system than they're set to take out, and they'll come up with all sorts of whiny excuses to keep it that way, future generations be damned. It is disgusting.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#93 Jan 17, 2013
carey529 wrote:
obama pulled the same scare tactics the last time...
it was a bunch of bullshit then, it's a bunch of bullshit now.
It's clear that Obama wants a war, he has been dividing the country since his election. He wants chaos so he can step in and seize more power as he did yesterday. The rupublicans had better start standing up for the constitution and voice outrage or start looking for the Tea Party to mount many primary challenges.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#95 Jan 17, 2013
Armo wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone younger than 35 should be allowed to opt out of SS, because the plan is to pay today's retirees more than they paid into the system by taking taxes from today's workers and being insolvent when today's workers are retirement age.
When today's workers are retirement age, the large baby boomer generation will be mostly dead and we'll be back to more workers per retired person which will keep the system solvent.

The baby boom is a self-correcting problem; they'll all die eventually.

Feel free to opt out of they system; no can force you to receive a social security check when you reach retirement age.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#96 Jan 17, 2013
Armo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not make it measly 5 and stop with the drama and save SS?
Because raising the age isn't necessary to "save social security" (talk about drama).

Simply raising the cap on earned income being taxed and taxing capital gains would make the system solvent for another 50 years.

As I pointed out before, not everyone has a cushy office job where they can easily work until age 72. Manual labor jobs are hard on the body; most elderly farmers & construction workers & other such professions can barely walk by the time they're 70, much less continue working.

Raising the retirement age is just another way for the rich who've enjoyed cushy office jobs their entire lives to ensure those not fortunate enough to be born into wealth will die without getting a penny they paid into social security all those years.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#97 Jan 17, 2013
Armo wrote:
<quoted text>
About half the workforce is female. And SS was designed only to keep the working poor from spending the last 4 years of their lives working. It was intended as a social welfare program. It was not designed to provide 10-15 years worth of cushy retirement to middle class folks. There's a big difference.
So start means-testing social security for the wealthy; they can afford to receive LESS than the poor or middle class, instead of getting MORE like they do now.

Or limit the total a person can receive in benefits during their lifetime to what they paid in plus a reasonable rate of interest. At least that way the person can choose when to retire and when they want to receive the benefits THEY PAID FOR based on their personal health or economic situation; some may want to retire at age 50 while others will decide to wait until age 75 to retire. Either way, they know they will only get the same lifetime benefit regardless of when they retire. That would also encourage people to save more for their own retirement knowing they don't get a check just for breathing.

There are MANY ways to fix social security. Raising the retirement age is the WORST of those solutions and should be the LAST resort.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#98 Jan 17, 2013
Armo wrote:
Even increasing the retirement age by just 2 years is a huge step towards long-term sustainability. Those advocating no increase in the retirement are selfish individuals uncaring for today's workers and the future's retirees. They paid less into the system than they're set to take out, and they'll come up with all sorts of whiny excuses to keep it that way, future generations be damned. It is disgusting.
Future generations will have a future generation to pay for their social security, just as I paid for my parents & grandparents generation's social security.

Why should my generation be the only generation to suffer?

Do you plan cutting off social security checks to those receiving checks but whom are currently under your new retirement age and making them go back to work and wait until they meet the new age plus a penalty for the years they've already been receiving checks?

Didn't think so.......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#99 Jan 17, 2013
Armo wrote:
Even increasing the retirement age by just 2 years is a huge step towards long-term sustainability. Those advocating no increase in the retirement are selfish individuals uncaring for today's workers and the future's retirees. They paid less into the system than they're set to take out, and they'll come up with all sorts of whiny excuses to keep it that way, future generations be damned. It is disgusting.
If you insist on raising the retirement age, then the only fair way is to raise it ONLY for those too young to have paid a penny into the current system. AND give them the option to opt out completely from social security BEFORE they pay a penny in FICA taxes, knowing they will be 100% responsible for their own retirement by doing so.
Armo

Miami, FL

#100 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to opt out of they system; no can force you to receive a social security check when you reach retirement age.
....after they DO force me to pay into it?
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#101 Jan 17, 2013
Armo wrote:
<quoted text>
About half the workforce is female. And SS was designed only to keep the working poor from spending the last 4 years of their lives working. It was intended as a social welfare program. It was not designed to provide 10-15 years worth of cushy retirement to middle class folks. There's a big difference.
Exactly. When SS began paying out money it paid $200 a month and only about one out of ten people lived long enough to collect it. The life expectancy age was 62 so the government set the age to be able to get SS and Medicare at 65, so not very many people got those things and those who did only lived for a few more years. It was not set up to pay every person and every person's spouse who did not work and give every old person Medicare no matter they worked or not and pay big money to each person for 20-30 years retired. Today people look at it like a big chunk of money, a big part of their retirement. It was really set up to keep poor people from becoming homeless and from dying from lack of health care. Today men who have a wife who did not work can get double payments and double Medicare, so they get out millions of dollar more that they paid in if they live into their 80s or 90s, and they can get as much as $2,700 a month if they get a double payment, so that is a big chunk of money. It's kind of welfare for the rich and the middle class.
Armo

Miami, FL

#102 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because raising the age isn't necessary to "save social security" (talk about drama).
Simply raising the cap on earned income being taxed and taxing capital gains would make the system solvent for another 50 years.
As I pointed out before, not everyone has a cushy office job where they can easily work until age 72. Manual labor jobs are hard on the body; most elderly farmers & construction workers & other such professions can barely walk by the time they're 70, much less continue working.
Raising the retirement age is just another way for the rich who've enjoyed cushy office jobs their entire lives to ensure those not fortunate enough to be born into wealth will die without getting a penny they paid into social security all those years.
More lass warfare drama--geez, go to public schools like everyone else, pay attention instead of cutting class or staring out the window, get that "cushy" office job.

You can't expect others to pay for your retirement. How about some personal responsibility?
Armo

Miami, FL

#103 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So start means-testing social security for the wealthy;
Now you want to screw those that scrimped and saved on their own plus paid into the system out of any benefits. Bad idea.
Armo

Miami, FL

#105 Jan 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Future generations will have a future generation to pay for their social security, just as I paid for my parents & grandparents generation's social security.
Why should my generation be the only generation to suffer?
Do you plan cutting off social security checks to those receiving checks but whom are currently under your new retirement age and making them go back to work and wait until they meet the new age plus a penalty for the years they've already been receiving checks?
Didn't think so.......
The Baby Boom generation is much larger than the GenX generation that will be paying for their SS benefits. That there IS the problem.

Of course, the retirement age would have to be phased in--those whose r4etirements are 10 or more years away would have the later benefits age.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#106 Jan 17, 2013
Armo wrote:
<quoted text>
More lass warfare drama--geez, go to public schools like everyone else, pay attention instead of cutting class or staring out the window, get that "cushy" office job.
You can't expect others to pay for your retirement. How about some personal responsibility?
SS encouraged people to spend all of their money. They just assumed they would get all of that money from SS and get full free health care from the government so they spent all of their money. I looked at it back in the 1980s when I first met a lot of older WWII folks going onto SS and Medicare and I could see back then that those programs were going to go broke. In those days, the WWII folks would tell you it was all welfare to them after they had been on the programs for about a year, and they would tell you about all the free surgeries and tests they were getting. So back then, I wondered why the government didn't turn Medicare into vouchers because when I saw all of those people getting all of that expensive free stuff, I figured Medicare must be near bankruptcy. You can't do that kind of thing for very long - only tax workers 1.45 percent and then give those who didn't pay into Medicare big expensive old aged health care for 20-40 years. That's what happened. Over half of my relatives from the WWII generation are still alive and still on Medicare 35 years after they went onto it, and they did not pay into it. So imagine 60 million people on Medicare and SS with those kinds of costs not paid for. That's how the programs went broke.

The government should NOT have given the WWII folks Medicare for free. They took the baby boomers' money and gave it to the WWII folks. They should have given the WWII folks vouchers and saved the tax money the baby boomers paid in for the baby boomers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 2 hr Lots of bandwagons 9,779
News American dream turns to nightmare for undocumen... Mon spytheweb 1
Decision Mon Dave B 1
News San Jose Activists Vow To Fight On In Wake Of S... Jun 24 spytheweb 4
Social Security Disability Jun 21 miranda 2
News Commentary: How the US Supreme Court may change... Jun 21 tomin cali 1
Social Security Disability if you are in college Jun 20 Alice587 1
More from around the web