Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary sharpens the knife for baby boomers on Social Security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 10:48 AM
Original message
Hillary sharpens the knife for baby boomers on Social Security
Edited on Thu Apr-17-08 10:48 AM by tokenlib
By repeating once again that she is not in favor of benefit cuts for CURRENT recipients, she leaves the door open to cut benefits on those of us within 15-20 years of retiring. I could easily see her raising the retirement age on us as well.

Sorry Hillary, a lot of us are struggling and going to need our Social Security benefits. Removing the cap on the payroll tax will solve any real or perceived problem with Social Security for as long as we can see into the future.

I trust Obama on this one--and a lot of other boomers will realize the implied threat of Hillary's words on our future financial security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't get the outrage of raising what we pay for social security
beyond the $95,000 cap. It's not really a "tax" because most people get back more than they ever pay in. In any case, that figure was arrived at years ago and is in need of updating based on everything else that has changed in our economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Bullshit - read the Trustee's report and note the results/assumptions - no need for
any change as projection 3 shows no deficit ever - and that's with projections of an economy at half speed for 75 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Better tell all the politicians then..because they think it needs fixing....
And if they think it needs fixing...I simply think our benefits need protecting. So if they are going to tinker--I say raise the cap and protect the vulnerable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. raise the cap - eliminate the cap - is a good idea for fairness and it allows a rate cut - but
Edited on Thu Apr-17-08 07:43 PM by papau
do it to reduce the employee share of the payroll tax by 1.5% - and not to "save the system"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4themind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. So her plan is "Fiscal responsibilty"?
Edited on Thu Apr-17-08 11:36 AM by 4themind
Has she spoken concisely as to how she will define when it has been reached, what is her plan to bring this hypothetical about and what is the CONTINGENCY plan if that alone doesn't "solve" the problem. Just seems to have the potential of kicking he can down the road (to my generation)at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Hillary doesn't do contingencies/Plan Bs - like not wrapping up the nomination by super Tuesday.
Between her inflated opinion of her own abilities, and her overblown sense of entitlement, and her general megalomania "I will create an umbrella for all the Middle East countries" and take harsh reprisals against Iran, etc., she is incapable of making contingent plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. Obama clearly ruled out rasing the retirement age. Hillary did not. That was big news.
Hillary's proposed "social security commission" cop-out will do exactly what Reagan's did in the 1980's: raise the retirement age even more than it is already now.

At what age do you want to receive you social security? 70+

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. As we live longer it makes sense to raise the retirement age from today's 67 to 70 beginning in 2035
Edited on Thu Apr-17-08 07:46 PM by papau
by a one month increase that year and every year thereafter for the nest 36 years, while retaining the early retirement option of age 62 retirement at a reduced amount
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Minimum wage/service jobs are not conducive to working full time for older Americans.
Edited on Thu Apr-17-08 09:23 PM by Divernan
God, you are so unrealistic and inexperienced! Police, firemen, truck drivers, health care personnel, nursing home assistants, anyone who has to work on their feet for most of their shift and all blue collar workers -are hard-pressed to continue after the age of 60. They have bad backs and bad knees, and loss of hearing and macular degeneration and diabetes, and high blood pressure and on and on. I have a great postman - all that walking has kept him in good shape. But he can't be trudging up and down hills through rain and sleet and snow and 90 degree heat spells when he's much past 60.

Get a clue about how difficult it is for people over 50, let alone 60 or 65 to get a decent paying job with good benefits, let alone a pension. You might have a very slim chance at filing an age discrimination case if you get laid off or fired and replaced with a much younger person. Hardly any of these cases are ever pursued by the appropriate govt. agency any more. And employers play all kinds of games to get rid of older workers (getting rid of a whole layer of managers, for instance, or moving the work to another city or country, or changing the work description - like Walmart's brilliant ruse of making all clerk/greeter's jobs include outdoor work in the parking lot in bad weather, or unloading heavy containters - that will get rid of the older employees. Over the 45 years of an average work life (age 20 to 65)people's wages increase to the point that the employer can hire 2 or 3 new workers for what they're paying the older worker. And you can't pursue an employer for not hiring older people in the first place.

Many Americans, lacking pensions, will have to work until they literally collapse. But at least if they can start collecting their full social security at age 65, they can work only part-time to supplement their income, and would it be too frigging much to allow people the hope that after a lifetime of labor, they can look forward to maybe FIVE years of retirement while they are still in relatively good health enough to enjoy it?

God, if HRC said people should work until they're 75, you'd parrot that too, wouldn't you?

Meanwhile, look at the EU, where people start out with four weeks vacation a year and get full health care, and good schools for their kids - but then the EU doesn't exist to support a war machine/military/industrial complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. As Slick Willie pointed out, 60 yr. old women get forgetful & confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hillary against lifting FICA cap. Obama for lifting it.
All true progressives know which one of these positions accords itself with progressivism.

Not lifting cap= the top 10% paying an ever diminishing portion of their income in FICA taxes.
Lifting the cap= allowing the top 10% to participate equally in a regressive tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. My brother retires in 5 or so years.
I can't wait to hear his reaction to Hillary's concept that he may not get back what he paid in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. She's right about one thing though
We've got to get the gub'mint's grubby paws off the trust fund, and repay the money that was filched from it before we start "calculating" how to "fix" it.

Any calculations done now would have the effect of ratifying that theft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC