This Statistic Should Shut Down Any Talk of Cutting Social Security

[xchrom]

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22619-this-statistic-should-shut-down-any-talk-of-cutting-social-security

When this story broke earlier this week, it did not get nearly the attention it deserved, so it bears repeating now: 36 percent of workers, according to one poll, have less than $1,000 saved for their retirement.

That comes from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, which does an annual retirement confidence survey. That has jumped up from 28 percent who reported having less than $1,000 stashed away for retirement last year.

That is one of the statistics that should shut down any conversation about pushing back the retirement age for Social Security or reducing the cost-of-living adjustment for benefits. The idea, often put forward on the right, that people will be able to compensate for benefit cuts with their own savings is not panning out in the real world – and won't as long as we're in a slow-growth economy with high unemployment and stagnant wages.

"Cost of living and day-to-day expenses head the list of reasons why workers do not save (or save more) for retirement, with 53 percent of workers citing this factor," the executive summary of the survey says. And no wonder, given the stagnant wages of the working class the past two decades, which result in 40 percent of the nation's households today earning less than $39,000 a year.

[djean111]

1. It should, but it won't.

I have even seen folks (or maybe a folk) here say that no matter what your income, you must save enough to retire on. I guess by doing without three meals a day or something like that.

[scarletlib]

2. True--but not realistic.

My husband & I both have college degrees and have always earned above minimum wage. The reality of our life was that it took both our incomes just to cover everyday expenses of living and taking care of 2 kids. There was really nothing left to save.

We are lucky though as i will have a small pension from my job when I retire. We have also been saving money like gangbusters for the last 10 years+ since kids are all grown. We were never spendthrifts but reality is ordinary people in this country don't earn enough to met ordinary needs of families and save large amounts of money for retirement.

[justabob]

11. right

You are correct that even here, people (more than one folk sadly) think that if you don't save x% of every paycheck then you are doing it wrong. Never a thought that just maybe even eating nothing but rice, beans and peanut butter, and cutting everything down to nothing, there simply is not enough money. It is amazing to me how many people have NO FUCKING CLUE just what kind of decisions have to be made to survive until the next paycheck, assuming there IS a next paycheck.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

14. “Socialism never took root in America because ...

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

-John Steinbeck

The issue is that the exploitation has been expanded to the entire 99%, led, sanctioned and codified by our political leadership, who are also looking to make a buck at the expense of others.

But I feel the pendulum is starting to swing back, at a grassroots level. Maybe not in time for my generation but in time for my eight-year-old's generation.

[hfojvt]

33. there's the trouble with that 99% nonsense right there

exploitation simply has NOT expanded to the entire 99%.

Members of the top 10% do not feel exploited. Nor should they.

Heck, even members of the top 40% shouldn't feel exploited. It's not like they are poor.

[CFLDem]

37. Disagree

Especially with student loans and kids, it's very difficult to break even every month below the 80th percentile.

They still live paycheck to paycheck just like the poor.

[hfojvt]

38. I am well below the 80th percentile

And I have no problem making ends meet.

Heck I am well below the 50th percentile.

Of course, I have no kids.

My brother is in the top 25% and is struggling (according to him), BUT both of his kids have nicer cars than I do.

It can be hard to live on any income if you over-indulge yourself.

And I note that you said "below the 80th percentile" rather than "below the 99th percentile". That's the 79% and NOT the 99%.

I just don't believe that people making $150,000 a year are struggling. Not unless they are trying to "keep up" with people who make $250,000 a year.

But even the $250,000 household is NOT in the top 1%.

[SheilaT]

40. This is the crucial point.

Yes, I do understand that people in the very lowest part of the income continuum will have little or nothing left over to save. But when I see someone who, along with the spouse, is making 150k or so a year and saying that it's not possible for them to save because every single penny goes to the basics, but the basics somehow include a couple of 50k or so cars, a house in the most expensive part of town, several ski trips every year plus a nice summer vacation some where, I then have to think otherwise.

And bonuses. If you work in a job where you get a bonus every year, you should never spend that money but put it straight into some sort of savings and investment. IRA or Roth if you can. Otherwise just straight forward savings of some kind.

Meanwhile, it is genuinely criminal that companies have gotten away with walking away from their pension obligations. State and local governments are preparing to do that right now. You worked, you were promised a pension, it was their responsibility to set aside the money.

[airplaneman]

60. The 80% is a household income of $65K or less - 250K puts you in the top 3%

I agree you can find a basic lifestyle that is not that expensive but I see the nightmare in trying to retire in our current health care system. I spent $10K last year on age related health issues and this year will probably be the same. My sister spent 24K last year on health related issues that wiped out 10% of her IRA and she just retired. Neither one of us has what would be considered a serious health problem and heaven forbid what that would cost.
-Airplane

[SomeGuyInEagan]

66. I would disagree

But that is my opinion.

I do think that all of us except for the very top who control our society - which I consider to be fewer than even the top 1 percent - are being exploited by those who control things. Again, IMO, the level of exploitation varies. But at the end of the day, it is all about the wealthy controlling the wealth and rigging the game so that even more of the wealth moves into their hands.

Until more people realize that they are not and never will be allowed into that club, it will not change in the U.S. I do think after 30 years of garbage policies and 40 years of undoing what was accomplished in the '30s through the '70s, people are starting to see that. I especially see more of it now with the college-aged students I work with than I did when I their age - more a sense of contributing to the community, less about just getting money.

Makes me hopeful.

[hfojvt]

67. In 2009, there were 3.48 million

there were 3.48 million tax filers who made more than $200,000 and less than $500,000. There were 13.85 million who made more than $100,000 and less than $200,000.

Do you really think somebody who makes $160,000 a year is being exploited?

I think they are living the American Dream.

However much the "game" is or is not "rigged" it sure is putting a fair amount of money into THEIR hands.

But me, I also think the 11.73 million people making between $75,000 and $100,000 are doing pretty darned good as well.

Heck, even I seem to have plenty of money with my $30,000 a year job. My trouble is that I hate the job and I am sick of it. Especially since I can taste that longed for retirement date.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

69. My American Dream would include Medicare for all

As part of a strong safety net which includes safe work conditions, opportunities for social mobility, protections against environmental dangers, security against poverty in old age and more.

I don't measure the American Dream purely in $$$.

I do think those who run the U.S. do. And they know that they can continue to push more of that wealth into their control by convincing others that the goals I seek are "socialism" or getting in the way of the rugged individual getting his own.

But I do think more and more people, including those in the upper 10 % see that as BS and turning us into the type of society they don't want to leave to the next generation.

So, yeah, I am hopeful.

[hfojvt]

70. unfortunately

there are lots of people at all income levels who either a) don't want medicare for all or b) don't care about getting medicare for all.

It is the masses of voters who are rejecting medicare for all, not some mysterious cabal who is "running things".

And especially there are lots of voters in the $75,000 to $500,000 range who absolutely do not want to pay more in taxes.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

71. Actually, most polls show single payer has support -

- as does ACA - among voters and citizens. At least the ones I have seen.

One place where it does not have support is among the House of Representatives - 535 people.

[Hissyspit]

53. +1

[tonybgood]

3. Not to mention that pensions are not reliable any more.

Ask retired employees of GM or the city of Detroit.

[L0oniX]

4. The plan is to put old people in prison for profit...

and of course take some if not all of their SS.

[CrispyQ]

16. This.

There was an article this week about this. I didn't save the link, but some for profit prison is re-fitting to hold all the old & infirm prisoners. This is the beginning.

on edit: Found it:

Today in Disgusting: Getting Rich By Locking Up Grandpa


https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/today-disgusting-getting-rich-locking-grandpa

Well, that didn’t take long. Within just a few months of Kentucky cutting its ties with the country’s biggest for-profit prison company, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has hit back with its latest sinister scheme to turn tax dollars (and human misery) into shareholder returns.

Here’s the plan: rather than letting one of the company’s prisons in Kentucky sit empty, a CCA ally in Kentucky’s legislature has announced plans to re-fill it by incarcerating the old and infirm.

more...

Has CCA suddenly decided it really cares about the elderly? Not quite. It cares about profits, as it always has, and this provision would create a new way for CCA to bolster its bottom line. If the federal government reimburses the private prison company for its medical expenses through Medicaid, it will convert old people into an attractive revenue stream for CCA. By recharacterizing this geriatric prison as an “assisted living and/or nursing facility,” CCA can receive the same Medicaid reimbursement as a nursing home or hospital in the community—and be paid a per-diem rate by the Kentucky Corrections Department on top of that.

Turning people into attractive revenue streams. Have we ever lost our way!

[L0oniX]

20. Yep ...that's where I got the idea from.

[cui bono]

44. omg... that's horrible!

I'm a little confused though. Are they planning on moving the elderly prisoners who are already incarcerated into one of those rather than releasing if that's what would have happened? Or are they planning on more sentencing of elderly people who are arrested? And possibly profiling elderly for arrests so as to fill those up?

If this wasn't ever an OP it should be.

[CrispyQ]

45. I read it that they want to move elderly prisoners into these facilities,

to get access to medicare funds, in spite of studies that show many of them could be released back into society. And of course, we all know that the care these patients should receive will likely not happen as the funds are siphoned onto the company's bottom line. Once 'they' start this, though, the profiling of elders will begin. We live in a wicked, mean, nasty society & old people aren't valued even today. It's not getting any nicer out there.

[cui bono]

46. Oh yeah, I would bet money on them not getting proper care.

How did we become such a greedy and uncaring nation?

I know most people aren't that way, but as a whole the US is that way based on our laws.

[Curmudgeoness]

50. You made a significant point.

"Most people aren't that way". And that is true. Most people are not greedy and uncaring. So how do we allow our country to become one where there is no compassion? More and more, I am coming to the belief that the wealthy people who run this country are the greedy and uncaring ones. Every year, I am more disgusted with the wealthy, and I think that few of them have a conscience. But somehow, the rest of us let it continue....because why? We have no power? We can't do anything about it? They make the rules? Why?

[Cleita]

52. They will take all of it except maybe $100.

I once worked for private nursing home operators and that's how they did it and the state let them.

[marmar]

5. k/r

[Helen Borg]

6. No, seriously...

What do they think will happen with all these elderly people in poverty?

[tblue37]

8. Exactly what used to happen before SS was available. But that scenario doesn't bother them. nt

[Downwinder]

29. The County sold the County Farm.

It was set up in the 30's for elderly poor.

[Lars39]

30. Poor farms and orphanages.

We have almost come full circle.
Elderly family member in her nineties still gets an absolutely horrified look on her face when she tells us about them. At first the younger set didn't quite believe her, but she soon set them straight.

[Enthusiast]

15. They could care less.

[L0oniX]

21. Silly! That's what "for profit" prisons are for.

[Ikonoklast]

35. They'll be lovingly fed and cared for by churches.

....which wasn't happening before, and that's the reason we needed Social Security to begin with.


So many so-called religions and charities suck at everything except raising money.

[DesertDiamond]

7. At my level of income, I can save very little, and it always ends up going to an emergency.

[radhika]

9. Policy makers don't give a hoot about your lack of savings...

That's not their concern. It's yours and your soon to be non-heirs.

Policy makers live to serve deep pockets and themselves. That's not us.

[progressoid]

19. The median net worth for lawmakers in the House and Senate is $1,008,767.00.

[reformist2]

10. We're watching capitalism in action - low wages, high prices, sucking people dry.

Ayn Rand once wrote a book called, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."

Someone should write a response - "Capitalism: The Unknown Raw Deal"!

[kairos12]

12. k/r

[Enthusiast]

13. xchrom, they do not give one fuck if we live or die.

Check that, clearly they want us to die so they can siphon more of the FICA contributions into their greed coffers.

Anyone that would suggest we raise the retirement age or in any way compromise social security and medicare qualifies them as a completely heartless asshole. No exceptions.

Democrats everywhere should make it clear that Third Way is not welcome in our party, again, no exceptions.

[Jeff Murdoch]

32. Don't be silly.

Of course they care whether you live or die.
It's just which one they care about depends on how much they can profit off of your ass.

[ballyhoo]

17. That statistic will simply make Team Koch rub their

hands together and salivate. By this time in history there would have been a full-scale revolution. I don't mean groups of 20 to 50K people emailing their congressmen and marching with garish signs. I mean an honest rebellion. That still may happen with all the guns all over the place. But I am not sanguine about that for the very reasons constantly mentioned. No one has any money; people are weary from working multiple jobs just to keep the water running, and social changes taking place have left many enervated beyond repair. So who can participate in the rebellion? Who knows? Who can fight a police force being trained to maim and kill on sight of trouble without asking questions, whether the alleged perp is dressed in a suit or a tutu? I think the catalyst for rebellion will come from the elderly who remember what life in the US used to be, and, knowing they don't have much time left, begin to act like people in honest rebellion years ago would act.

[SheilaT]

41. I would argue that as bad as things are, they

really are not bad enough to foment revolution in this country. It would need to get a whole lot worse. As bad as things are for many people, they are not totally desperate for the majority.

I also was told many years ago by a history professor that revolutions tend to occur once things are getting just a little better than they were at rock bottom. All of a sudden the masses can see that things can be better, and that's when they revolt. I have no idea if that's a valid theory of revolutions or not.

[ballyhoo]

42. Okay. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for

responding to my post.

[SheilaT]

48. Oh yeah. I was not trying to

do a snarky prove you wrong post. Just my opinion.

[ballyhoo]

49. Roger that. I'm over at the

post now where the Telegraph is saying Putin may want to invade Moldovia. Don't you just love the media? I knew they were going to do this. They'll have Putin invading New Hampshire before they're done.

[YarnAddict]

18. Part of the problem

is that we boomers were raised to expect to get what we want when we want it, and that usually means RIGHT NOW!

I was a bank teller for a few years, and one of my customers was an elderly gentleman who had LOTS of $$$$. He was a WWII vet, and had been a blue collar (union) worker for pretty much his entire life. He worked hard and saved every penny he could. Told me that his co-workers were constantly asking why he didn't go out on weekends, or buy new cars, or whatever. He always told them they would be sorry some day.

Now, he drives brand new cars, has diamond jewelry, refers to his SS check as a "little" check, has multiple hundred thousand dollar CDs in every bank in town, and countless other investments in who-knows-what. (And he's always happy to tell you how much money he has!!)

So many of the rest of us waste money on useless crap--the latest technology, or fast food, or cars.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone. I just wonder how many of the people who claim to be living check-to-check couldn't find a few things to cut out of their monthly budgets, in order to save.

[joeglow3]

22. Live like no other so when you are older you can live like no other

Delayed gratification is very much lost on most people.

[YarnAddict]

26. We had close friends

who spent $$$ like water. He was in sales, so image was important. Comping his clients was important. He was raking money in hand over fist, and they lived very well. Whenever they got a whim, they indulged. Boats, motorcycles, new cars every couple of years, expensive trips, etc. My friend occasionally felt guilty--in a really condescending way--that she could have things other people wanted and couldn't have.

Lots of stuff was purchased on credit. They had payments that would have kept me up at night.

Well, things happen. His business tanked. Now, nearly 30 years after first meeting them, my husband is looking forward to retirement, and she has admitted that they will never be able to retire. Makes me really glad that I never felt compelled to engage in any kind of competition with them.

[ballyhoo]

23. My wife and I did that ourselves. We both worked good jobs

and saved all our money by not going out, not taking expensive vacations, having our kid based on the $50K rule and doing all kinds of spartan stuff. Financially, it worked out okay. But the time missed doing more fun things together took its toll. Our one daughter is doing okay. She has decided to not get married or have children thinking that is too much responsibility for the status of continued employment nowadays. So my wife will not be a grandmother, and she is sad about that. Not me: I see all these people all over the world burying their children after mainly the US has attacked them and I wonder when the payback will come. Soooo, a life lived in moderation, secured but not fulfilled. I thought there would be more...

[YarnAddict]

24. "The Road Not Taken"

We all make choices, and even when we are sure we've made the right choices, many of us look back and wonder what would have happened if we had made one little change at some point.

[ballyhoo]

25. That pretty much sums it up. And you

can't really fix it late in life. Wife and I went to Maui last week and stayed in an expensive hotel. Everything was nice, although my favorite part was the bedding. We went on something called the zipline (after being told we were old), when whale watching, drove all over the place, ate in nice restaurants...but it was pretty much all ho-hum, for not having done it much because we didn't do it before, and feeling guilty because so many can't do anything. The road not traveled? Yes...Also life is about the train ride itself, not ending up on the caboose.

[YarnAddict]

28. You are fortunate

to have both the money and the health to do those things at this point.

We are doing fine financially, but both my husband and I have some health issues that make ziplining something we will never do!!!

I guess our choices are made based on our personal temperaments--some people are willing to accept more risk than others.

[ballyhoo]

31. I won't do it again! We both have arthritis and

were taking hydrocodon for days afterwards. We wanted the chair type seat, but they were sold out so we had to do the one that looks like bikini underwear strapped to two lines. Holding on for dear life looking at tree tops in jungle after jungle. However, my wife wanted to do it. And she's 69 on her last year of working. I could hardly say no. I was scared though and would not have done it myself. And I fought in two wars so I am no lightweight. Personal temperament had to slide.

You have brought things that made me think. Thank you for that and taking the time to respond to a low count poster.

[marew]

54. Really!?! Please do not speak for all boomers!

"Part of the problem is that we boomers were raised to expect to get what we want when we want it, and that usually means RIGHT NOW!"

I'm an early boomer and I can assure you I was NEVER raised that way! I went to college- luckily got a fellowship for grad school- worked for 30 plus years... I am retired now but my husband and I always lived below our means. We now live in a very small paid off house in a middle class neighborhood. I drive a 6 year old small car. We worked hard, hubby sometimes worked a job and a half. We saved regularly and are now doing well. We've been to Europe twice in the last four years and our financial guy said we are doing great but we worked and saved for three and a half decades. Many times we saved for purchases rather than charge it. We have no cc debt.

I suspect a lot of the difference between my working years and now is the fact that the real incomes for today's workers have stagnated putting them at a great disadvantage financially. The newer generations do have it much more difficult than we ever did. But, please, do not pretend to speak for all boomers!

[YarnAddict]

55. Obviously I don't speak for everyone

and never intended that my comments would be taken that way.

I am a "middle boomer," but my parents were raised during the Depression. My husband's parents were ten years younger than mine, and he had an entirely different attitude toward money. I see a whole lot more of his attitude than mine in the people we know.

Young people today (especially women) have many more opportunities than we ever did. My d-i-l isn't even 30 years old yet, and has already achieved a six-figure income. She had help--her parents paid for her education--but she has made good career choices, and they have been wise with their money.

Instead of buying Starbucks coffee every day, or having an expensive phone, if young people would put that money aside and make-do without, they would be much better off.

[fleabiscuit]

57. If I close my eyes and let my computer speak your post you sound just like Paul Ryan.

~eom

[HughBeaumont]

68. "Young people today (especially women) have many more opportunities than we ever did."

They have "more opportunities"?

Do we live in a time where either Mom OR Dad can go to work and one can stay home? Not since the mid-to-late 1980s. In fact, now the wealth-hoarders can get mom AND dad for the same wage that they got mom OR dad for. And we work longer hours than our 1970s counterparts and because of this, our savings rate is the lowest it's been in nearly a century.

There's no "Ford plant" or "Steel Mill" to go to after HS if a millenial (or, let's face it, an X'er) is not meant for college. The laid-off in manufacturing and industry aren't getting comparable-wage factory and industry jobs; they're going to the low-paid, crap-benefit service masoleum. Automation and technology promise to destroy more jobs than it creates, so pretty soon, even the low-wage service industry is going the way of the moderate-pay manufacturing (a sector that YOUR generation chose to ship overseas to profiteer and enhance the bank accounts of the Jack Welches, I might add).

Generation X was the last generation to see semi-affordable college. Higher education has skyrocketed out of the reach of most middle class families and pretty much all working/working poor/poor families.

What's their reward for the draining of monies needed to start off life with, all so they can have that supposedly mandatory piece of paper? 33 years of unbridled "Fend for yourselves, I GOT MINE" capitalism and the wage stagnation that came with it has resulted in an 13 year sustained period of the weakest job creation and wage growth in the past three decades. STEM fields - we're supposed to spend a ton of money to come out to four applicants per job opportunity? We're supposed to go into a mountain of debt for temporary employment??

In the next 15 years, we may very well see millions of Americans without a paycheck coming in. I'm curious as to how consumer-based capitalism continues without Americans that possess the ability to consume.

I don't know, do we all "start our own businesses"? "You never know, it might work out"?? Sorry, I can't eat on "You never know, it might work out". I can't pay my mortgage on "You never know, it might work out". I can't send my kid to college on "You never know, it might work out". I can't retire on "You never know, it might work out".

This is "OPPORTUNITY"???

This is BULLSHIT. This is a cop out. This was a robbery and we're all paying the unwilling price for it. I feel so sorry for our kids who we, you know, sang songs about . . . "I believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way" . . . PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT. Yeah, because this horseshit barbaric economy (that we STILL PRACTICE for some absolutely idiotic reason) foisted on all of us sure seems like one hell of a present to give them, right?

[world wide wally]

27. I don't think the OP gets it.

The right-wingers that want to eliminate or cut Social Security will only be encouraged by that statistic. They are out to punish people period. They couldn't care less about the welfare of the people or a healthy economy. This can accomplish two things.
1) Billionaires get more of the money and the peons get less,
2) It makes Obama look bad

Of course they will push for it.

[ballyhoo]

34. That would be the straw that broke the camel's back

for many, including me. There are tons of boomers around that still know how to get things done. You won't see the real good ideas on any website, but they are there. All those groups meeting in the Black Hills are just waiting for the time to be right. And they are largely not tea people.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

36. Stagnant wages

are a big deal, and of course, a bad deal. If you start low, you stay low.

Excellent article - thanks for posting.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Not only that but

the current system penalizes people who do save for retirement. 401Ks, for example, come out as taxable income, and when your taxable income hits a very low threshold, $32,000 for a married couple, your SS "benefit" gets taxed too.

As usual, these gotchas slam the middle class. The thresholds are set to farm as much tax revenue as possible from the fattest part of the bell curve.

[Helen Borg]

43. Do these people own a house?

The article is not clear. I mean, if you retire with 250K and you own your house, you may be OK for 15-20 years on a tight budget. Remember that usually, when you get money out of those 250K you will have to pay some taxes, to begin with. So right there we are down to 200K... If you have to pay rent, then things are tricky already.

[awoke_in_2003]

47. If we lived inn a nation...

that could actually see reality, it would. But, alas, we live in a nation of brain washed consumers.

[Cleita]

51. It also occurred to me that if all recipients of SS got a $1,000 a month raise

to bring it up to something that seniors and the disabled could actually live on, it would act as a bigger stimulus to the economy than a job stimulus program, although we should have that too. There is $2.5+ trillion in the SS fund. There is no reason it can't be done. Funds can be replenished by raising the cap on the rich so that they pay their fair share too.

[FreeJoe]

56. Done the math on that?

There are about 63 million people paid by SS. Given them an extra $1,000/month and you are paying out an extra $800 billion per year. That would eat up the entire surplus in about 3 years. Removing the cap would be good for about $100 billion in extra income a year.

If you want to pay everyone an extra $1,000/month, you'll probably need to remove the cap AND raise the rate from 12.4% to something like 20%. Good luck getting that tax increase through congress.

[Cleita]

58. That wouldn't happen, but the stimulus to the economy would right it. n/t

[fleabiscuit]

59. Have you done math regarding all income counting as regular income?

Including Stock-Based Compensation?

That could be telling.

[airplaneman]

61. Oh come on!

It is a lot simpler than that.
Raise taxes on the wealthy even just a little or to before Clinton time.
Remove the cap.
Tax stocks and derivative trades- a 1% tax yields 3 trillion a year.
12.4 to 20% is not necessary.
-Airplane

[fleabiscuit]

62. Well geez.

The next thing you might suggest is that corporations making billions with our natural resources is actually spending our public capital and is not income.

[DeSwiss]

63. K&R

- Keep pitchin 'em xchrom.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Wall Street WANTS that $1000 too....

"Retire"?

Yeah, right.

Just die if you aren't going to make them money.

[Victor_c3]

65. I'm pretty much in that situation

My plan is to use a combination of my VA disability (70% rating) and the pittance I'll get from social security. If I'm lucky, I'll go really crazy with PTSD when I get closer to retirement and get the 100% disability status from the VA and SSDI.

The sad thing is I'm only half joking when I say this...