Jeb Bush Backs Hike in Social Security Retirement Age
Source: National Journal
"I think we need to raise the retirement age, not for people that are already nearing, receiving Social Security, or already on it, but raise it gradually, over a long period of time for people that are just entering the system," Bush said. "And I think we need to do that in relatively short order."
Bush made the comments at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Manchesterthe same venue that potential presidential rival, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, outlined an entitlement-reform package of his own earlier this week that also included raising the Social Security retirement age.
Christie called for eventually bringing the retirement age to 69. Bush offered no such specifics during his appearance at the institute. Asked by National Journal afterward if he had a specific age in mind, Bush said, "Nonot yet."
Read more: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/2016-jeb-bush-social-security-retirement-age-20150417
Jeb, here's a hint. If you're going to say something stupid and pandering, it helps to say it first...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)Will feed deeply at the public Tax Trough
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)He's a Bush. Nuff said.
More years for people to die before they can collect and more money for the rich that way.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)So you want to go after your own people?
Please proceed...
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)and with so much vile hatred they are easily convinced that everybody and everything that does not following their suit is the DEVIL.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Still pisses me off though.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)The blind leading the blind, both will fall into the pit
turbinetree
(24,703 posts)Jeb Bush: Net worth of $10 million how much of this did he pay into Social Security.
Well boys and girls since you might ask---after $118, 000.01 cents (2015 funding requirement) he doesn't pay one single solitary dime---not one.
At this and only $118,000.00 he pays only $7,316.00 dollars---that's it nothing more--zilch---nadda.
So if this logic is correct he pays a whopping $7,316.00 @ 6.2%,for $10 million in worth (nice game huh-----just like any other republican--saying the system is broken--and they want there wall street hedge fund cronies to get there mitts on this---its not going to happen---there buck and buckettes)
Then if you subtract that from his $10 million that leaves him with $9.992,648.00 dollars and some change to just to go around and say:
Let me get my hands on this program so please let me screw some people while the slobs pay for my and my corrupt friends social security---what a deal, just like a typical republican car salesman with his billionaire and millionaire backers and the republican slobs (suckers) that one day they will be like bushy
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)n/t
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Bush looks weak and vacillating here. He has been out of office for around 10 years so he has had plenty of time to formulate a position on this issue. And with his blood lines everybody knows he was only waiting for the right time to run. And, no, I don't think you can attribute mistakes like this to rust from the long layoff. He is showing that he has his brother's brainpower - which is to say is underwhelming.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)In the same way that Moe was clearly the most competent of the Three Stooges.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)DON'T RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE. Most of us will NEVER be able to retire if those repub assholes have their way.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Jeb Bush: "Let them work till they die."
warrant46
(2,205 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Loads of people went on Soc. Sec. disability, during these past 10 years of lousy economy, cause they were not old enough for retirement Soc. Sec.
( I am NOT talking about the state's SSI disability program).
So they got the disability, plus at least Medicare A.
When they turned 65, they were automatically switched over to reg. Soc. Sec. and could get Medicare B also.
Thus the Soc. Sec. system overall was paying out a lot of money.
Now, what happens when people have to wait till 69 for Soc. Sec.?
They will go on Disability if they can qualify, for longer, until they reach the 69 birthday mark.
What Jeb and his cohorts are not saying:
Since so very many Americans have been forced into minimal wage jobs, any Soc. Sec. due them is going to be much lower, cause it is based on amount earned.
But there is no plan for Washington to stop spending Soc. Sec. taxes as fast as they come in, leaving the program high and dry.
Washington takes the money and sticks an IOU in the ledger, payable in future Treasury bonds.
Lot of countries that used to buy these debo bonds are now selling them off.
Gonna be an interesting future.
RobinA
(9,893 posts)in just this position. A good worker, smart, laid off at age 60 in yet another round of cost saving cutbacks. Had some disabilities that developed over the 20 + years she worked for them, but was able to work the job well having developed some work arounds that cost the company 0$.
Now its time to look for a new job. At age 60, needing health insurance, with understanding of the need for doctor's appointments. Needless to say, that didn't work real well. Hired a lawyer and got SSD without much problem. Now the government pays this person starting at age 60 instead of normal retirement age. A company saves some money and a person who would prefer to work doesn't. I think we see who the winner is here.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)If she is getting full disability now, there will be change in her income.
But..the Repugs are seriously looking at the disability part of SS for cuts. Now.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)to address the fully-fake crisis! crisis! in Social Security.
Republican/Third-Way Granny Starving brigade.
progree
(10,908 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)but Congress stopped it. In 2008, Hillary was prattling on about the need to "reform" Social Security or some such crap, without raising taxes.
progree
(10,908 posts)you say if you wish to have any credibility, and not just being another worthless polemicist.
And by the way, I probably don't like Hillary any more than you do ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6520767 ). But around here "IIRC" blah blah doesn't convince anyone of anything.
Oh, so you did some research after the "IIRC" in response #12 -- at least you got it down to a specific year. Maybe you can share the link. Though in #12 you were pretty specific in what you IIRC'd [font color = blue]"raise the age and/or cut benefits"[/font], while in #20, though you've got a specific year, suddenly the prescription is a bit more vague [font color = blue]"the need to 'reform' Social Security or some such crap, without raising taxes"[/font].
And whether it is a crisis or not, the projections are that Social Security will not be able to pay promised benefits after 2033 (18 years from now), and those projections have been trending to an earlier and earlier trust fund exhaustion date. Maybe you can tell us why that's not a problem.
christx30
(6,241 posts)It's from 2007, but it says she wouldn't raise the retirement age.
Hillary Clinton: Raising the retirement age isnt the answer to preserving Social Security. Let me start with calling for a renewed national commitment to Social Security, this is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States. And you dont have to worry, when Im president, privatization is off the table, because it does not answer anything. From my perspective cutting benefits is not the answer, raising the retirement age isnt the answer, we need to get back to the fiscal responsibilities that we had in the 1990s where we werent raiding the social security trust fund anymore. When my husband left office, we had a secure Social Security system until 2055, and now all of the sudden the Bush administration took us back into deficits we lost 14 years off the solvency of the Social Security trust fund in the last six and a half years. [NBC News, 9/4/07]
And Salon think Hillary needs to do a u-turn on that. This was written 2 days ago:
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/16/heres_where_hillary_needs_to_flip_flop_the_tax_hike_she_must_reconsider_to_save_social_security/
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)But...no one ever talks about it and it surprises the hell out of people when they now find out.
I was born in 1955...my age for full benefits will need to be 66 plus 2 months.
progree
(10,908 posts)Born in or before 1937: 65
1938: 65 and 2 months
1939: 65 and 4 months
1940: 65 and 6 months
1941: 65 and 8 months
1942: 65 and 10 months
1943-54: 66
1955: 66 and 2 months
1956: 66 and 4 months
1957: 66 and 6 months
1958: 66 and 8 months
1959: 66 and 10 months
1960 and later: 67
And what Jeb wants to do is raise that 67 to something higher (but won't say how much higher). And Chris Christie wants to raise that 67 to 69, though I don't know what his timetable is except it will also be a gradual increase for those born later and later...
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)If we eliminate the SS cap, how much could we lower the percentage EVERYONE pays and still make SS solvent for future generations. Maybe even lower the retirement age back to 65. Anyone willing to try?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)like here in the USA are living longer why not extend the retirement age (which personally I am against). Hell you start working around the age of 25 to 65, shite that 40 effing years. Not all businesses through employee's payroll put into SSI and those people are not entitled to it. But the ones who do like me do not want to work past 65. 65 is old enough, leave it alone, damn.
LiberalArkie
(15,716 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Especially lower-income women.
That's due to a number of factors: Lower-income workers actually encounter more stress; there is a lack of access to healthy foods, and a lack of access to preventive medical care. ACA might help with the latter; although recent studies show that people who were previously uninsured avoid going to the doctor for routine checkups.
ileus
(15,396 posts)F that....lower it to 60.
The SS/Medicare age needs to be dropped, not raised.
chapdrum
(930 posts)I like to think am in right mind...so, I don't take seriously, for an instant, ANYTHING that emanates from the fetid mind of ANY member of this traitorous family. Naturally, the MSM is delighted to prolong the deeply exhausted fantasy that said family is concerned about the American people, at all.
lostnfound
(16,180 posts)I think the answer is that it ISN'T being said to win over any group of VOTERS. It's intended to please, and/or win approval from, some select tiny group of funders.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)still_one
(92,215 posts)Would die before they have a chance to collect
And that goes for any Democrat also who thinks raising the age for SS is a good idea, they can all go to hell
Hopefully, the Democrats that will be running or in Congress won't do something so stupid and cruel
Larry Engels
(387 posts)Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Bush favors raising the retirement age.
Christie opened with a platform of taking on Social Security and Medicare.
Paul: "If you are not going to look at entitlements then you are not a serious candidate."
Cruz: However, given the gravity of the debt facing our children and grandchildren, I believe that Americans expect us to do more. We need meaningful entitlement reforms"
Rubio: "The drivers of our long-term debt are Medicare and Medicaid programs and, to some extent, Social Security."
-none
(1,884 posts)When Social Security is mentioned, the Defense Budget is nowhere to be found. That needs to change.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Jeb, let's see how far you can go with this .. just try.
Klong
(18 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)When a company has a round of layoffs their senior workforce is hardest hit meaning people get pushed out the door early. Jeb talks as though this is a choice. Far from it. This is actually nothing more than a back door way to cut benefits. People over 55 are in constant fear of the pink slip because it is next to impossible for them to find new employment.
There are also jobs where the physical pounding is more than people past 62 can take. That is why provisions were put in the law to allow for early retirement.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)You're more apt to see a 69-year-old lawyer than a 69-year-old miner, but Jeb wouldn't know this.
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)100 years old. Why the fuck not ? Lets see , can't have a pension , can't get SS until 60 fucking nine. Work till you drop is the new deal I guess.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)JCMach1
(27,559 posts)The Medicare paid-for hoverround crowd just don't get the cognitive dissonance of their anti-government stance.
daleo
(21,317 posts)A conservative dream.
JudyM
(29,250 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)davekriss
(4,617 posts)...George Walker Bush's two tax cuts reduced more revenue in 10 years than the predicted 75 year shortfall for social security.
Boy have we been robbed!!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Jeb never did an honest day's work. All he did in office was rob the public for his family and cronies.
Born to be fed with a silver spoon in his mouth, he's always been retired, never need to work.
He'd never need a pension, it's just a GOP fat cat and mouse game.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)bikebloke
(5,260 posts)...the more the plutocrats will have once they steal it.