Sanders slams Jeb Bush over Social Security remarks

[babylonsister]

Sanders slams Jeb Bush over Social Security remarks
By Rebecca Shabad - 06/03/15 04:13 PM EDT


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday slammed former Gov. Jeb Bush’s (R-Fla.) recent comments about raising the retirement age for Social Security.

Bush suggested the age to get Social Security should be raised from 65 to 68 to 70.

“At a time when more than half of the American people have less than $10,000 in savings, it would be a disaster to cut Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age,” the Democratic presidential candidate Sanders said in a statement.

“It is unacceptable to ask construction workers, truck drivers, nurses and other working-class Americans to work until they are 68 to 70 years old before qualifying for full Social Security benefits,” added Sanders, who has pushed to expand Social Security benefits.

snip//

Hillary Clinton, considered the Democratic frontrunner for president, chastised Republicans in April for attempts to change Social Security.

“What do we do to make sure it is there? We don’t mess with it, and we do not pretend that it is a luxury – because it is not a luxury. It is a necessity for the majority of people who draw from Social Security,” she said during a stop in New Hampshire.

Clinton is expected to hold a kick-off rally in New York this month, about two months after officially jumping into the 2016 race. After that, she's expected to roll out more specific policy platforms.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/243931-sanders-slams-jeb-over-social-security-remarks

[libdem4life]

1. We need those free-for-all debates. Let their older, white folk hear what he's got in mind

for their future. In the meantime, give 'em Hell, Bernie.

[JDPriestly]

4. I agree.

What happens is that in the primaries, candidates on the left and right are excluded. We end up with milk-toast middle-of-the-roaders running for election and all the people to the left and right of them silenced.

Let's have a national debate that includes the opinions and ideas of all, all points of view should be included. I don't know how in the world the logistics could be organized.

But here is one idea: pick a rather narrow topic. Say Social Security or No Child Left Behind or the NSA spying or anything controversial and invite all candidates who wish to debate to debate that narrow topic. Ask several questions from different angles about the topic and let each candidate discuss his views on the topic for a given number of minutes.

Maybe also you could have debates that are transmitted on the internet and people could go to a website and watch the debates rather than setting aside a specific time period on TV for the debates.

Ye another idea would be to have a website that lists questions and allows each candidate to submit a statement on his answer to the questions.

Let's take Social Security. You could ask how each candidate whether he thinks the eligibility age should be raised, whether he thinks benefits should be cut, whether he thinks the cap should be raised, whether he would means-test it. Each candidate would answer each specific question and voters could access the answers on the internet.

Just some ideas.

[Paka]

6. IMHO...

Good Ideas!

[libdem4life]

12. I had a rather extreme idea...but like they say...it takes a village...so who knows?

It has to be way out of the ordinary, IMHO, so here goes

The People's Debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civic_and_political_organizations

OK, this is Way Out There, but it gets the job done and everyone has to speak on each major topic. Just think, it was the Republicans that forced this with all of their "hopefuls" and still counting. I'd love for Rachel to be the Moderator, like Gwen Iffel used to do. I'd send it to her, but haven't a clue how.

Any declared candidate for President is welcome to join. Any major news organization is in the rotation. Same time every week. Draw names for "pods" of maybe 6 candidates. Each candidate in the pod gets their scheduled time/week as in a regular debate on just one subject. Of course there are more Republicans, so they would be debating each other in some cases. After each has had one turn, reshuffle and go again on the next topic. Commercial Advertising like PBS...sponsors at the beginning, middle and end. Once a week for an hour until the primary or until complete. No audience, so no clapping or booing or anything...straight up old-fashioned debate and argue.

Invite appropriate non-profit organizations to be present and pose questions on the topic...a list is below. Make sure all minorities, women and disabled et al have a voice via a non-profit.

Then draw again for a new set of pods and a new issue. Rotate news channel. Rotate non-profits. Same time every week...so people could tape it, if they work during that time. Candidates can jump in or jump out of the rotation. There are no winners or losers...just information.

I bolded some non-profits I thought might be appropriate. Seems like they cover the interest of The People pretty well. A real Trial by Fire...which is what the President's job is. See how they perform under pressure. See if they have any thoughts or ideas on things that matter to The People. They'd have a week to do their homework.

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA)
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
Association of Young Americans (AYA)
Kiwanis International
League of Women Voters (LWV)
Lions Clubs International (LCI)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
National Civic League
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)
National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
National Organization for Women (NOW)
National Rifle Association (NRA)
National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA)
Parent-Teacher Association (PTA)
People for the American Way
National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
Roosevelt Institute Campus Network
Rotary International
Ruritan National
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)
The Collegiate Statesmen Foundation (CSF), see also The Collegiate State of America (CSAmerica)
The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, see also The Grange
The Washington Outsider
National Urban League (NUL)
The CDC

[erronis]

15. That's a great idea - really! But how would the media make $$$ on it?

And how would the vested interests prevent there from being a free exchange of ideas?

I would also ask that the moderator has the authority to call a foul, to silence a mike. It's hard to imagine the blustering idiots blathering on and realizing that they are shouting at themselves. Perhaps we could hope for an aneurysm or two.

[libdem4life]

21. Of course, from the ads. But unless Bernie and many of us are entirely wrong,

people really do want to know. That moderator would be, in my perfect world, Rachel Maddow to keep time, keep it civil, etc. She could do it...with a smile.

Or, they could put it on TLC where the Duggars used to be...maybe even use some of their former sponsors...then the networks themselves would not be involved but have the right to the feed...and for that they would pay and be able to switch back to their own commercial ads at the beginning, middle and end.

I just got it...Reality TV...who knew...thanks for the question. It's like the parade down Main Street.

[sabrina 1]

63. I like that idea a lot.

Bernie is waiting for the debates, we'll see how many take him up on the offer. And that will say a lot about them imo.

[daleanime]

42. +1

[kenfrequed]

56. Too true

Middle of the roaders that are overly influenced by money indirectly from the Koch brothers through their vast array of corporate think tanks. Which is why we get democrats that are "open to raising the retirement age."

We definitely need to shake this up considerably!

[Punx]

8. Yes

My mother (quite white) who is collecting Social Security mentioned that she is afraid that they are coming after Social Security. (Some lack of sympathy here as she and dad have voted rethug most of their adult lives) Immediately, I made sure to mention that both Bush and Christie are suggesting cuts/changes so hopefully it sticks as to who is really going after it.


Democrats would be fools to do anything but be in opposition to anything but strengthening Social Security.

[libdem4life]

27. The way things are set up now, unless the question is asked in some large forum, or

the candidate forced to answer, they just skate over the issues they know they are likely on the wrong side of...see Bernie's speech on Rachel's Show. Without that they can still lie out of it...did not...did too...did not etc.

[Punx]

33. Yes

I watched it on the 9PM rerun. I am glad to see him challenging the status quo. And yes all politicians even Bernie sometimes will evade answering. For some of us it's very obvious the question isn't being answered.

Eventually though I think it sinks in for most that if one is actually speaking from sincere belief and brings evidence to the argument that they will connect with the audience. A good moderator and forum will help immensely.

[hifiguy]

16. +1 nt

[procon]

2. Republicans use the excuse that since people are living longer

they can work longer, so they don't need to draw from Medicare or SS. I'm a senior, and I suppose I will live longer, but does that mean I'm healthier, no, not really. I'm alive because today's pharmacopeia has advanced to the point where most of my illnesses and infirmaries are better managed and that allows me to stave off the natural arrival of the Grim Reeper.

Republicans don't think things through, or they would realize that most employers are not going to hire older workers because they are not as productive as younger employees. Old folks pose a liability risk in a workplace where their injuries might occur more frequently and be far more costly. Employers are still reluctant to hire handicapped people and pregnant women, so why would they hire grannies with canes and pulling an oxygen tank?

If most of these older workers can't find jobs in today's scarce pickings, what do they do then? They become an added burden to states and their taxpayers who will have to divert money to fund more unemployment, disability and welfare programs to cope with seniors who have no means of support.

To those handwringers who fret that SS won't remain viable, I says the solution is simple... just raise the cap.

[erronis]

20. Remove the cap. And limit the withdrawals based on need.

[JDPriestly]

38. If you raise the cap on contributions and at the same time raise taxes on the top marginal rate

by a number of percentage points, then those seniors who have really high incomes will pay their Social Security taxes back to the general tax fund.

Seniors over a certain age do not pay into the Social Security Trust Fund as it is, so they would not be double-taxed.

That's the fair way to do it. As it is, the Republicans who suggest means-testing Social Security probably don't realize that if you earn over a certain income in a year and receive Social Security, you pay a higher tax rate than those who receive less income and are on Social Security. In that sense, Social Security is in a round-about way, already means tested to a great extent.

[erronis]

39. Thanks for this clarification. The whole SS/wage/tax thing is overly complicated - by design.

[D Gary Grady]

58. Pretty sure no age limit on paying into Social Security

"Seniors over a certain age do not pay into the Social Security Trust Fund as it is..." As far as I can determine, that isn't so. Anyone with earned income pays Social Security tax on that income regardless of age, though the Social Security tax applies only to the first $118,500 of income in the current year. (The limit rises with inflation.) Of course, very elderly people usually don't have earned income.

You're of course quite right that Social Security income is subject to income tax depending on one's total income level, and this amounts to a form of means testing. See http://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.html

[HoosierCowboy]

61. It's an insurance program...

...not a welfare program. That money is the money that you and I put into it, and we have a right to collect it just like we have a right to take money out of an annuity that we put money into for fifty years.

Need? yah right! Jeb needs that money to bomb the Middle East, you can give him your share, but keep your hands off of mine.

[cascadiance]

34. And if you look at real statistics, only the rich are living longer now...

... since they are the only ones getting health care and other things in this economy that help them living longer.

So upping the retirement age doesn't really take anything away from them, but it DOES take AWAY retirement benefits to most of the rest of us who aren't living longer than we did earlier. Also, lower infant mortality than early parts of the last century are affecting statistics too, not just how much longer or not longer we live too.

http://www.eoionline.org/blog/the-social-security-retirement-age-whos-really-living-longer/

[daleanime]

43. +1

[SoapBox]

3. Funny how millionaires and billionaires, want to make it harder for the rest of us

to collect Social Security (as well as Medicare)!

As far as I'm concerned, they no cred in such matters.

[JoePhilly]

5. Excellent!!!!

[peecoolyour]

7. "Preserve and strengthen" is Democratic Party speak for cut the shit out of it to save it.

I'm glad Bernie simply says we should EXPAND Social Security.

[Jefferson23]

9. Good, go after them, the both of you. n/t

[D Gary Grady]

10. And Bush is wrong about current SS retirement age

Because of changes introduced during the Reagan administration, Social Security's current full retirement age is 66 (not 65 as Bush said) and is gradually rising to 67 for future retirees.

I'll use this as an excuse for some Social Security trivia:

It's still possible to choose when to draw benefits as early as 62, but the lifetime monthly benefit is reduced for every month you start drawing before full retirement age. It's also reduced by $1 for every $2 you earn over a base amount (that changes every year), but those extra dollars result in a modest increase in benefits at full retirement age. (The last year before full retirement age the reduction is $1 for every $3 earned.) The reduction applies only to earned income, not investment income.

The benefit amount also rises every month that you postpone drawing them up through age 70. In fact, if you can possibly afford to postpone drawing benefits this is the best thing to do for most people (though in the meantime you might want to take spousal benefits if you can), because it's equivalent to leaving your retirement savings in an account paying around 8% over inflation. Of course, it depends on how long you end up living, but in terms of retirement income, the danger is you'll outlive your savings.

Social Security benefits are paid from current Social Security taxes. The Trust Fund exists to smooth things out, collecting excess taxes when there's a surplus and helping subsidize benefits when there's a shortage. The Trust Fund is invested in Treasury securities. Contrary to widespread myth, all this is how it was always meant to work from the start.

Because of demographic changes, if nothing is done in the meantime the Trust Fund may run empty in about 20 years or so, at which point the law requires benefits to be cut across the board to what the taxes alone will support, which would be a reduction of between 20 and 25 percent by current estimates. The problem could be solved, quite easily, by a mix of raising the Social Security tax rate, applying it to more income (it's currently paid only on earned income and then only up to a ceiling, at which point the marginal rate drops to zero), making minor tweaks to the benefit formula, raising the full retirement age some more, applying means testing on benefits, admitting more immigrants to pay into the system, etc. The only difficulty is deciding among the numerous options.

Contrary to other myths, Social Security is not a Ponzi or pyramid scheme (which are incidentally different things), has not been "raided by Congress" unless you count the fact the Trust Fund isn't kept in bags of cash in Uncle Scrooge's vault, in the worst case scenario will still pay benefits (just reduced somewhat), and is not facing an impossibly difficult crisis but rather a problem that's easy to solve.

[erronis]

23. Great synopsis. Unfortunately a lot of people won't read it and a lot more will diss it.

I just went through the typical Social Security/Medicare maze and was not at all happy with the differing opinions I was offered or the outcome. However, I did make my own decisions and had plenty of information to use.

Many won't have a clue about the choices. Many will be purposefully led to a plan that save the government and isn't the best for the user. It will be suggested that there are "navigators" and free advisors to help, but the choices are difficult - especially when choosing to get an extra $100 this month versus and extra $300 in a few years. Most of us that are on the edge don't have the ability to wait a few years.

Why is this the only large industrialized country that won't support its own people?

I'm beginning to understand that Nike and others don't view the US consumer as very important any more. Since the US consumer doesn't have much disposable income, why should the large multi-nationals give-a-shit?

I do dig that national loyalty is so passe - that US based companies find it much more convenient to set up shop in Luxemborg, Ireland, the Caymans. I understand that yachts and private jets and billionaire enclaves aren't really part of a National view of the world.

I don't think they understand that their greed will ultimately undermine their fine life-styles. But until then, drink up!

[libdem4life]

28. I had to wait until 66 and my sister will have to wait until she's 67...4 years difference in

our ages.

[fasttense]

11. To get your full retirement benefits that you paid for you have to be 70

To get early retirement you can be 65 or in my case 66.5 years old. So, I'm confused about what these stupid rich RepubliCONS want from us. If they change early retirement to 70 then regular retirement would be exactly what? 75, 80, 90? We paid for these damn benefits twice and now some rich assholes wants to screw us over it. No skin off their nose when we get it. Bunch of stupid fools.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Ask around. MOST people don't even KNOW that employers match the Social Security payment....

You pay 6.2%. Your employer also pays 6.2%. 12.4% goes into the program in your name.

THAT is why Republicans want to end the program. They want to make it so employers pay NOTHING.

Their attitude is, "Why should your employer pay for YOUR retirement? Take some responsibility for your OWN life you moocher!"

[rurallib]

14. well, that and they want to take the SS fund and give it

to their buddies on Wall Street to play with and extract some huge fees.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. Once they get their hands on it they'll stage a HUGE crash....

"Oops! We lost all of your money!"

"Where did it go?"

"It's gone."

"Gone where?"

"No. It's gone,...really."

"What are you holding behind your back?"

".......nothing......"

"Let me see."

"There, see?"

"The other hand."

"See?"

"Now BOTH hands."

<tuck> "There, see? Nothing"

"Sure there is." <slaps on cuffs>

[rurallib]

19. right you are - how much will a 70 year old broke person work for?

$4/hour - less maybe? It's a Wall Street wet dream.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. They used to have really old guys working at railroad crossings....

Back before automatic signals a guy would come out of a little shed and warn motorists of an oncoming train. At night he would swing a red lantern back and forth.



That's why very early automatic warning signals looked like this:



That evolved into two alternating red lights.



Jobs like that where an old guy can rest his bones don't exist anymore.

Let be honest. Republicans want us to work ourselves to DEATH because they feel we are all a bunch of worthless eaters anyway.

[HornBuckler]

22. I couldn't read your post and not think of this:

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. At that point you grab his desk and tip it at him trapping him beneath it....

Standing on it you then choke him to death with his own tie.

Oh wait,...that's Ren and Stimpy.

[tclambert]

31. "Didn't the CEO of your investment bank get a multi-million dollar bonus?"

"Sure, but he earned all that."

"He earned millions by losing all my money?"

"Yes, he worked really, really hard. Sometimes he stayed late on Tuesdays."

"What am I supposed to live on now?"

"Well, you should have saved your money and invested it."

"I did. I worked three jobs, scrimped and saved and invested it in a mutual fund run by your company, and it went bust!"

"Oh, yes, the crash of our 'Saving Option for Seniors' fund. That was very sad. Fortunately, all the officers of that fund got golden parachutes before it failed, so they can retire to a life of luxury."

"They lost everybody's money! Why do they get to retire when I'm gonna have to find a job at 70 years old?"

"Hey, now, you don't want to be a deadbeat, do you?"

"Goddammit, I'm gonna get a job building guillotines!"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. I already have dibs of the pitchfork and torches concession stand.

[daleanime]

44. Need some backers?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. On the pitchforks....

The gas for the torches is coming from their yachts.

[daleanime]

55. Nice!

Now you're thinking a capitalist.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Bern the motherfuckers out!

[MineralMan]

26. Jeb Bush is a moron, and just destroyed his chances, I believe.

Good for Bernie and Hillary for calling him on his idiocy.

[daleanime]

45. +1

[libdem4life]

29. Gosh, and he's the Smart One? I agree. Put a fork in him..he's done.

[AzDar]

30. No more Bushes! No more Clintons! America needs BERNIE!!

[daleanime]

46. Hell yes....

[azmom]

35. Expand it not fix it.

[sinkingfeeling]

36. Uh, Jeb. Today the age of full retirement is 66 for everybody born 1943-1954 and is 67

for those born after 1960.

[Art_from_Ark]

50. So what is it for people born in 1955-60?

[sinkingfeeling]

57. 66 plus x number of months, depending on the birth year.

[JDPriestly]

37. K&R.

[Fla Dem]

40. Corporations don't want people working for them if they are over 60-65.

If they are long term employees they make too much money and their benefits cost too much. The corporations keep weeding out the older employees and adding younger cheaper ones. It's been going on for over 20 years. Used to be people retired after 30-40 even 50 years of service. NO more. Lucky if you can stay hired for longer than 10 years at the same company. Then because of your age, you can't get hired somewhere else because you're too experienced and they don't want to pay what you are worth. Small companies it's not so bad, the the larger corporations are cutthroat.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. Hell, they don't want anyone over 55....

They expect to be PAID.

[RiverNoord]

41. Who pays for these statements?

"Hillary Clinton, considered the Democratic frontrunner for president"

I don't consider her the 'Democratic frontrunner for president.' She has considerable support and polls extremely well against the loonies who have thus far announced that they are seeking the GOP nomination. However, there have been no party primaries or caucuses, the election isn't for a year and 5 months, and there is at least one potentially very strong challenger whose support seems to be growing steadily.

"Hillary Clinton, considered by some to be the Democratic frontrunner for president" would at least be a truthful statement.

[The Wizard]

49. Lowering the retirment age creates job openings

All that needs be done is a major rollback of military adventures on foreign soil. Put the troops on the border. It keeps the money in circulation at home and keeps the border crossings secure. Also use the military to secure major transportation hubs, train stations, airports and seaports. .

[djean111]

51. The thing I watch out for - "STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY". I want details on that one.

Some politicians believe the way to do that is to distribute less.

[HockeyMom]

52. When I quit working at 62,

only because my still working husband made a good salary, I recommend a 22 year old part timer to replace me. She got the job. If I had continued working, she would not have gotten this full time employment.

Being forced to work until older ages means YOUNGER workers won't have these employment opportunities.

[Thinkingabout]

53. The full retirement is now 67, you can still take a reduced pension at 62 and the longer you wait to

Draw your SS amount rises until 70.

[YOHABLO]

54. The cost of everything is so damn expensive, no one can save any money. It's very depressing.

Fuck capitalism. Let's start taking care of the people of this country for a change instead of filling the coffers the ultra rich. What monsters we've created. It's unadulterated evil.

[HoosierCowboy]

60. Social Security has become Permanent Unemployment Compensation...

...instead of a retirement program. Most Americans will lose their job sometime before they even get to 50 and will not be able to get another because of age discrimination.
Hung out to dry, those permanently unemployed have no other choice but to hold out hope that they can collect S.S. before they get too impoverished or too old.
...unless the "Smart" Bush has his way and spends it all on wars for oil.

[DallasNE]

62. Earth To Jeb - The Retirement Age For Social Security Hasn't Been 65 For Several Years

It is currently 66 and is in a 9 year pause before going to 67 under current law. Amazing how out of touch people like Jeb Bush really are. Makes you wonder if he is aware stores now have price scanners on all of their products - that one caught daddy by surprise a few years ago.

http://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/retirechart.html