General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMelissa Harris Perry Just Said: "It's Reasonable To Raise the Retirement Age"
Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:00 PM - Edit history (4)
It looks like the catapulting of proganda has begun. The pundits have the talking points and the Third Way Democrats like Van Hollen & Conrad have already put out feelers. I'm gathering all of the evidence and plan to put it together in a video. When you see anyone on the Democratic side pushing for these devastating cuts for the American people, please let me know and I'll be sure to add it to my video of shameful Democrats who plan to betray their constituents and destroy the pillars of the Democratic Party.
Edited to include contact info:
http://melissaharrisperry.com/contact.html
Edited to refine the quote. Sorry sticklers, the actual quote is just as bad.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)So perhaps when they see and hear it being said by Democratic officials and pundits, they'll believe it? I won't hold my breath, but it certainly will make it harder to deny.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)I hope the OP can help get this place off it's President as American Idol bias and get us all back to real discussions of real actions and the degree to which they will help or hurt us.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)No problem.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)the American people get the shaft.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)2012 was a choice between bad and worse.
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)rest, I made out OK. I know none want to hear it, but sometimes there's a lot of crossover between Rs&Ds when it comes to the haves.
Riley18
(1,127 posts)Telling us what is okay. Laborers need earlier Medicare.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)RKP5637
(67,083 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)well before the current, official Social Security age of full benefits. And that is the problem. Older workers, in spite of the laws prohibiting discrimination against them, are discriminated against.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)They keep pulling rugs out from under me.
Last week I learned that my pension will be ending. 28 years of contribution and at least need 10 more years to retire and now I have figure out how to compensate. On top of that, I no longer feel that my job is secure.
Next they will pull the safety nets Medicare and Social Security out from under us just as we are getting closer.
Ever feel like the system is being designed as you go to keep you from getting ahead?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)He's two years older than me. When he turns 67, I still won't be eligible for Medicare for another 2 years under this plan. So he'll have to work til he's near 70 before we can both be protected. It sucks to be an American.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)RKP5637
(67,083 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)your pension, that is just so wrong. But who do we have to blame really? You've been here on DU. Remember all the attacks on anyone who tried to bring up these issues DURING election season? We are told to stfu because 'there's an election coming up'. As if that is not the BEST TIME to let our politicians know what we expect of them.
We KNEW when they said 'SS will not be discussed during the election' that a deal was already made.
Now we have to work even harder to stop them. It is going to destroy the Dem Party if the open the door to the SS fund even a crack, and I hope they know it. Best way to let them know is to post on the WH blog and to call Reps, both Repubs and Dems. And to join all the organizations who were worried about this before the election, and formed a huge coalition to stop them.
plethoro
(594 posts)if what you say does not work, it will be time for rakes and shoves because if they can take what we lawfully earned all our working lives, then they can damn well pay the ultimate price if they try and steal it. And I will be joined by millions. No one likes to be conned either; however, that's what looks like is coming down.
cilla4progress
(24,713 posts)Or sorry, if that is too far off-topic ...
I know the theoretical reasoning, at least some of it, but practically speaking?
Just wanted to get some dialogue going in general about these "entitlements" and reforming them ...
\
dawg
(10,621 posts)It would eliminate political support from many of the upper-incomers who would be affected and from many middle-incomers stupid enough to believe they would be affected.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)to help society. Some people don't mind undergoing a means test for benefit eligibility. What should be clear is the NO ONE should be allowed to opt out of paying into the system.
Is your observation any different from wealthy people who claim that less wealthy people don't work as hard because they know government will help them?
dawg
(10,621 posts)Including some who aren't rich enough to qualify for the means-testing in the first place, but are stupid enough to think it applies to them anyway.
We are already struggling to prevent the dismantling of these programs. Anything that further erodes their political support is harmful.
As for your comparison to claims about poor people not working as hard because they know the government will help them .... to some extent those claims are probably true. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't provide help. Everything in this country shouldn't be geared toward wringing every last ounce of productivity out of the working classes.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Why not cut off Medicare and SS if you are at a certain ASSEST level as well as income level.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)2 million dollars in the bank, 5 cars, a 2 million dollar home, a beach house, a speed boat, etc.... and have the government provide your medical care so long as your income is less than 135% of poverty level. To think that the President has any thoughts of putting asset tests on SS/Medicare is not realistic. They actually took away the states ability to have asset tests for the medical program for the poor.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)don't need it. Just good old amerikkkan greed.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)'millionaires and billionaires' is passingly small. administrative costs for a means-tested program would be higher than any savings.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)entitlements.
Means-testing is a cynical ploy. It would cost more and destroy support for the program.
femrap
(13,418 posts)is an Insurance Program. No one can foretell the future...will you need retirement income beyond what you have saved? Will you become disabled before retirement and need income for basic needs?
Same with Home Insurance. No one can know if their house will burn to the ground or be vandalized. Now after the homeowner sells the home, does she/he demand all the money back from the Home Insurer???? No.
So you were lucky in life and accumulated massive amounts of money and assets, do you need SS income? No. Does that income make any difference to your life style? No. The wealthy retiree should get down on all fours and kiss the ground and thank The Universe that they do NOT need SS Income. But they don't.
Someone who is a member of the Working Poor for their entire life...it is difficult to set aside money for retirement. But they have put away money for their retirement via the SS system. They will need it. And maybe some of those people will never be able to stop working.
Means testing of SS Income is one way to reduce the outflow of SS Income to those who don't need it.
Of course, I have a different mindset than most...maybe I'm a person who SHARES and understands that by 'the grace of Goddess/Universe go I.'
I really have nothing much but contempt for the selfish Elite.
Squinch
(50,901 posts)to means test would be higher than the savings to the program. So for that reason I would support ditching the idea of means testing.
femrap
(13,418 posts)Means Test was done on one's tax return. How does that cost a lot?
It would be a one or two line calculation.
eridani
(51,907 posts)People getting the maximum ~$32K/year are about 1% of recipients, so eliminating them would mean exactly jackshit to overall finances.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of the discussion. To even consider not paying them what they earned, regardless of their financial status, is simply wrong.
It would be a form of theft.
If they want to donate their share back into the system, then leave it up to them. But no means test, it simply isn't relevant to SS.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)1) millionaires isn't the cut off, middle class is the cut off.
2) instead of a universal benefit it becomes "welfare".
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)eliminate the cap and then cap the annual benefit. That's doable as it doesn't change any of the existing rules, just shifts them.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Social Security. Just like everyone else. Most people do not understand how small the Social Security benefits really are. You pay in all your life. You get out only a small monthly stipend.
aquart
(69,014 posts)How else will we refine our arguments to needle sharp?
Although I prefer to have some warning before I see your question so I can take anti-nausea medication. It literally makes me sick every time someone falls for the smooth, soothing, utterly divisive and destructive machination of that question.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Social Security is not welfare or SSI (SSI being essentially a welfare program).
Social Security is Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance.
You cannot collect it at all unless you paid into it for a certain amount of quarters.
It was established on the basis that everyone who did pay into it for a certain amount of quarter would be able to collect it. You don't change the rules or the contract after one side (the worker) has fully performed his or her end of the bargain.
You don't ask why a millionaire or billionaire who has paid in full for an insurance policy is entitled to collect on that policy, do you?
Why would you expect more fidelity to a contract from a private company that you would from your government?
Aside from breach of contract and morality, if Social Security (OASDI) becomes more and more like SSI, Social Security will disappear and we will be left with only welfare. And anyone who loves cutting programs loves cutting welfare most. Just ask Bill Clinton.
(Edited to fix italics.)
lovuian
(19,362 posts)a job
the place is to cut the Military Budget filled with tons of parties fast women and 300,000 dollar toilets
Walk away
(9,494 posts)okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Both.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)certainly didn't put him out of a job.
1983 Amendment Vote
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1983.html
Lots of others in that vote tally who didn't lose their jobs.
It's a club, of which none of us are members, and I feel a royal fucking coming on. Hope I'm wrong.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Something I read earlier this morning:
"The next media pundit who calls for shared sacrifice must describe in detail just what he or she is prepared to give up.
And it has to be a real sacrifice.
The idea that Thomas Friedman might see his federal tax rate go up a few percentage points does not equate with a sanitation worker or Walmart clerk having to clock in for another four years before they can claim Social Security. David Brooks, say, losing a favorite deduction isnt the same as a retired waitress in her 80s seeing her Medicare slashed.
Right now, shared sacrifice means that many wealthy, powerful people share the opinion that the rest of us should sacrifice."
-from a Kevin Baker column in the NY Observer.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)Well said!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Conrad is irrelevant on this issue because it will not be decided before the next Congress.
Here is Van Hollen on the Ed Show, starts at 4:25:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/ns/msnbc-the_ed_show/#49862348
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and he's clearly stated it in the clip.
I hope other DUers are paying attention. Kent Conrad is a friggin Republican, so of course he'd want to mess with social security, but it's pretty solvent just as long as Congress (all Republicans, some DINOs) keep their greedy paws out of the pot!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)hear she said that because of the life expectancy stats. African American men are currently at 67.5 years expectancy. And she supports raising the age to 67? Seriously? Of course, she a woman and her expectancy is over 70, enhanced by her vast wealth and golden health care. So again, perfectly fine for her. Why should she give a shit about anybody else?
MrYikes
(720 posts)and I do not believe she said this without a qualifier to end the sentence. I did not hear it so I am only guessing. If I get an email response from her I will post it here.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)because we're all living longer. Of course we know that isn't true.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)If you can even find a job in your sixties that you are physically able to do, it won't have healthcare. Until there is a single payer health care system raising the age limit is a terrible and deadly idea!
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Already be working a job going into their 60's.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Look around, workers in their 50s are being pushed out of jobs every day. And what about work that requires people to life of be on their feet all day. Not everyone sits behind a desk all day or has an employer who keeps them on the job when then can't compete with younger and stronger workers.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)We got a whole bunch of 50 and 60 something's working every day. Some are even pass retirement age. Their reason for still being at work I can't say. But they are there.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)through and restaffed. Now at 59 there are no jobs out there for her at all. Cobra lasts for 18 months but the cost of living here is about 4 or 5 times maximum unemployment benefits.
Finding a job at 50 plus that pays enough to live on in this area is close to impossible.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)She was planning for retirement but does not have enough savings yet and S.S. is a ways off. Right now she is talking about living with her brother in Texas but she says she might have a better chance of getting a job up here to keep paying payroll taxes and building the amount of S.S. she will receives.
I am thinking of asking if she would like to come stay at my cottage with me and help me with my little business. It might take awhile to build up enough business to support her.
I make a lot of sacrifices to be self employed. Chances are I will never be able to retire. However...no one can let me go for being too old or too expensive to keep on.
Lasher
(27,533 posts)"When you see anyone on the Democratic side pushing for these devastating cuts for the American people, please let me know..."
July 11, 2011
WASHINGTON -- In his press conference on Monday morning, President Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that he was willing to tackle some sacred cows as part of a larger package to raise the debt ceiling. Just how sacred, however, may surprise political observers.
According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html
Sedona
(3,769 posts)(if it's even true)
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's a tie!
Seriously, there are some issues with this report: It's based on anonymous sources and it's from 2011.
The media proved during this election cycle that they will say anything to drive the debate to the right and create the perception that everyone is leaning right.
The election proved the media wrong.
Lasher
(27,533 posts)Just throw it out when it gets stale. Like old bread, LOL.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Just throw it out when it gets stale. Like old bread, LOL."
Yes, because it's likely bogus. A whole year has gone by and this still hasn't been confirmed by an actual quote from the President.
His more recent statements also contradict the claim.
Lasher
(27,533 posts)Although it has been widely discussed in the media. Go figure.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Does Obama have to specifically deny any rumor put out there by anonymous sources? Was he ever specifically asked about this rumor? If not - why would you expect him to deny something that has no basis outside bullshit political rumormongering?
Hey! There's also anonymous sources out there that said Obama had a gay affair and killed his gay lover ... should he deny that publicly too?
Lasher
(27,533 posts)But yes, I expect Obama to deny these reports if they are untrue. More than that I expected him, as a Democratic President, to say that he will veto any legislation that incudes cuts to Medicare or Social Security. I'm not holding by breath while waiting for that because I realize it's never going to come from this President.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Give it up. Obama doesn't need to deny or refute any silly bullshit rumor spread through lying anonymous sources. He's got larger fish to fry than that shit and you know it. If he had to deny every anonymous 'source' that spoke out, that would be his whole presidency.
Just Google "Obama" & "anonymous sources" and see how many goddamn rumors are out there that you expect our President to debunk.
Hell, I'll help you out!
You've got stories about Obama being paid to come out in support of gay marriage, a bombshell fundraising scandal that will almost certainly sink his reelection odds (ha), a secret service agent committing suicide to protect Obama's reelection chances, that Obama was born in Kenya, that Michelle Obama was a jealous wife who demanded Obama stay away from actress Kerry Washington ... and that Obama had a GPA of 2.6 at Columbia.
ALL of this because of anonymous sources. So, if all these are untrue, Obama damn well better rebuke every single one ... right?
Give me a break.
Lasher
(27,533 posts)You:
"There's also anonymous sources out there that said Obama had a gay affair and killed his gay lover ... should he deny that publicly too?"
You are not making a logical appeal to the principle of similar circumstances. You have instead presented a red herring:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
You're not going to make your first fish stop stinking by piling more of them on top.
Anonymous sources are cited by credible news agencies such as the Huffington Post. Are you saying HuffPo is lying? This is an important issue - one infinitely more important and quite a bit more plausable than birthers' clown act. Yet Obama found the time to refute their claims, but you say he doesn't have five minutes to clear this up about his position regarding the Medicare eligibility age?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Just because you say it doesn't make it so...sorry, bud. Why do you get to decide which anonymous sources Obama should and shouldn't respond to?
Lasher
(27,533 posts)Is HuffPo lying or not?
I don't expect anyone to believe anything just because I say it. That is why I have tried to present a logical argument. And lucky for me, something is not automatically false just because I say it. But this isn't about me. It is not just I who is saying these things. Not by a long shot.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I wouldn't put it past the Huffington Post. The fact we're now almost to 2013 and nothing came of it probably tells me it was absolutely bunk. Whether they were lying or their sources were wrong is up for debate - however, this is why no one should universally believe anonymous sources.
Lasher
(27,533 posts)Sun Nov 11, 2012
Below are documents obtained by the Washington Posts Bob Woodward that show a grand bargain proposal the White House was prepared to make in order to reach agreement with the House Republicans last year. This is how Woodward described the documents on Meet the Press this morning:
"This is a confidential document, last offer the president -- the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses." So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far."
http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter
The linked article contains the leaked document, which includes the following line item:
Alteration in the eligibility age for Medicare.
What do you think that could mean?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I don't trust him, no.
Lasher
(27,533 posts)I don't.
How about Obama himself when he said, "It is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice (and) would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows."?
What do you think he meant by that? Do you think he meant he should have actual cows grazing on the White House lawn?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)That we need a balanced approach and yes, you can make some adjustments without radically overhauling it. None of that says "let's increase the age from 65 to 67!".
Lasher
(27,533 posts)That's not balanced.
What the hell, I can't believe anything you say because you are anonymous.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)And for all I know, you're Bob Woodward.
Lasher
(27,533 posts)Thanks for the fun.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)simply say, as Tammy Baldwin said, as Sen. Sanders has said:
SS had zero to do with the Deficit and therefore will not be a part of any discussions on the Deficit
That is the truth, it is simple, it has not been said by the President, and the question is 'why'?
It is more what people DON'T say than what they do that is important.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)This is just the kind of statement that needs to be included. I just saw another thread where Lieberman is pushing for the increase in eligibility age as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021831135
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)The Social Security retirement date is another story. Working people should not have to delay benefits until 70, period.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)My husband is 60, so he will have to by into Obamacare for a few years before Medicare kicks in. I've looked into costs, and as much as I can figure out, the premiums will be very close. In fact Obamacare may cover more so a supplemental may not be necessary.
Now, this is because we fall into the subsidized category because of his wage level, so others may have higher premiums, but for us it will be great.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Paying three times as much for shitty useless Bronze level coverage is going to kill people. They will be forced to give the money they might otherwise have used for doctor visits to insurance companies and get nothing back unless they get catastrophically ill.
physioex
(6,890 posts)But if we could get more young people see their primary care provider on a regular basis, then maybe we could manage conditions and avoid treatment.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Obamacare is set up to make routine physicals free and routine care cost less. In addition, filling prescriptions will cost less. I live in the only state that has medical care for all. I have stood in line behind seniors that are having scripts filled, they aren't complaining and seems to be content.
Obamacare is designed to keep people healthy. During it's early phase, the people that will IN FACT bear the brunt of making the system work are young people of 45 or younger. But as those people age, their better health will reduce costs for them as they age.
eridani
(51,907 posts)That keeping people healthy keeps prices down is delusional. Prevention saves lives, but COSTS money. A century of very successful prevention is exactly why we have so many old people around with their higher health care costs.
People paying THREE TIMES AS MUCH for nearly useless Bronze level coverage are the ones who are sacrificing, not the ones who pay 1/3 less for the same thign.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)upi402
(16,854 posts)I notice that. Big Ed talks about that too. He needs to talk to the latest media sellout in his cohort.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)NCarolinawoman
(2,825 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Cass
(2,600 posts)This is not perfectly fine with me. There's a lot of people out there who this isn't perfectly fine with. It ticks me off she is cool with this like it's no big deal. It is a big deal and will hurt a lot of people.
patrice
(47,992 posts)CTyankee
(63,883 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)progressoid
(49,932 posts)Gosh, Wally who should I believe?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)upi402
(16,854 posts)President Obama Calls for Cutting Social Security by 3 Percent, Raising Normal Retirement Age in Acceptance Speech
The media and "fact checkers" seem to have missed it, but President Obama implicitly called for cutting Social Security by 3 percent and phasing in an increase in the normal retirement age to 69 when he again endorsed the deficit reduction plan put forward by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of his deficit commission.
The reduction in benefits is the result of their proposal to reduce the size of the annual cost of living adjustment by 0.3 percentage points by using a different price index. After 10 years this would imply a reduction in benefits of 3 percent, after 20 years the reduction would be 6 percent, and after 30 years the reduction would be 9 percent. If the average beneficiary lives long enough to collect benefits for 20 years, the average reduction in benefits would be approximately 3 percent.
Since Social Security is enormously important to retirees and near retirees, the media should have called attention to this part of President Obama's speech. It is likely that many of those listening did not realize that his deficit reduction plan called for these cuts.
11-7-12
http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/president-obama-calls-for-cutting-sociail-security-by-3-percent-raising-normal-retirement-age-in-acceptance-speech
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)But I don't support it.
upi402
(16,854 posts)In the face of obscene greed and abuse by the top 1% you think it's reasonable to screw the rest of us out of the deal we've paid into all out lives?????????????
I can't say what I think
ProSense
(116,464 posts)President Obama didn't endorse Bowles-Simpson. The proposal was policy soup. There are things in it, like increasing the cap, that appeal to some, but the overall proposal was voted down because there was a lot wrong in it.
Here is the President's actual position:
Speaking by sattelite at the AARP's annual conference on Friday, President Obama took a subtle jab at Mitt Romney's claim that 47 percent of Americans were "victims" who saw themselves as "entitled" to food, housing, and health care, among other things.
"There's been a lot of talk about Medicare and Social Security in this campaign, as there should be," Obama said. "And these are bedrock commitments that Americas makes to its seniors, and I consider those commitments unshakable. But, given the conversations that have been out there in the political arena lately, I want to emphasize, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You've paid into these programs your whole lives. You've earned them."
Obama suggested that Social Security's finances could be "put on more stable footing" in part by raising the cap on taxable income. He dismissed as flatly "not true attacks from Romney on $716 billion in Medicare savings included in the Affordable Care Act (and Paul Ryan's budgets), saying that it "strengthened" the program.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/president-obama-medicare-social-security-are-not-handouts
From the President's DNC speech:
Now, Im still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. I want to get this done, and we can get it done. But when Governor Romney and his friends in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficits by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy, well, what did Bill Clinton call it -- you do the arithmetic. (Applause.) You do the math. (Applause.)
I refuse to go along with that and as long as Im President, I never will. (Applause.) I refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaires tax cut. (Applause.)
I refuse to ask students to pay more for college, or kick children out of Head Start programs, or eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor and elderly or disabled -- all so those with the most can pay less. Im not going along with that. (Applause.)
And I will never -- I will never -- turn Medicare into a voucher. (Applause.) No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity that they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but well do it by reducing the cost of health care -- not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. (Applause.)
And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-democratic-national-convention
October 5, 2012
In the first debate, Mitt Romney sacrificed the facts in order to mislead and confuse voters about where he stands on important issues to the middle class. On one issueSocial Securityits worth clarifying where President Obama and Governor Romney agree and where they disagree. Both President Obama and Mitt Romney know that the program is solvent for more than two decades and that theres a need for gradual reforms to the benefits that millions of seniors have worked for, paid for, and earned. But thats where their agreement ends.
While President Obama is committed to keeping the promise of guaranteed Social Security benefits for current and future generations, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have supported plans to privatize the program, and have put forward a plan that would slash benefits for current workers. Here are the key differences between the Presidents and Romney-Ryans approach to Social Security:
Obama-Biden
The President knows that guaranteed Social Security benefits are not handouts, but a bedrock of the commitment to retirement security America makes to our seniors. He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced, and he will not accept any approach that slashes benefits for future generations. President Obama stands firmly opposed to privatizing Social Securitythe future security of hard-working Americans should not be dependent on the fluctuations of the stock market. That is why the President has called on Congress to develop a bipartisan plan that follows these principles:
- Any reform should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency.
- The administration will oppose any measures that privatize or weaken the Social Security system.
- While all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.
- No current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced.
- Reforms should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors.
- Reform should maintain robust disability and survivors benefits.
Mitt Romney is taking a starkly different approach to Social Securityhe refuses to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, and is proposing to close Social Security shortfalls through benefit cuts alone. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and former OMB director Peter Orszag noted, his plan insists that any reform prohibit additional revenue, and thus relies on excessive benefit cuts that would undermine financial security for future retirees. Analysis of a similar plan showed that typical workers in their forties would lose $2,400 a year, and workers in their twenties would lose $4,700 a year in future benefits. Romneys running mate Paul Ryan was even the architect of a privatization plan that would have left seniors benefits devastated by the 2008 financial crisis.
The choice is clear: President Obama will never privatize Social Security or undermine retirement security for middle-class Americans. The same cannot be said for Romney.
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/how-president-obama-and-mitt-romney-compare-on-preserving-social-security-f
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to stir up fears about the deficit/debt and promote reductions in spending including cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
The President is under a lot of pressure and has to work with the rest of Washington. I'm glad people are being noisy about their opposition to changing Social Security.
upi402
(16,854 posts)Boehner said it was too late to open it all up again. Reid & Pelosi agreed to TRY to support Obama's taking Boehner's final deal.
Discount what he says in speeches to interest groups. He's in politics.
You should read this, even if it hurts a bit;
http://americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security-and-medicare-during-failed-grand-bargain-talks.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)From the WaPo article linked:
Mr. President, Boehner answered, we dont have time to reopen these negotiations.
White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.
The following night, Obama delivered a prime-time address from the East Room to update Americans on the status of the talks. He left no doubt about whom he intended to blame for the failure of the grand bargain.
The only reason a deal is not on its way to becoming law, he said, is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach a cuts-only approach an approach that doesnt ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.
Wait, so it was Boehner's offer, not the President's?
These stories are speculative, anonymous bullshit. Here's another from the same period.
<...>
On entitlements too they had moved closer to a final deal. The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade. And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015. (The White House had rejected Boehners bid to raise the retirement age.) This wasnt quite enough for Boehner, nor was it as extensive as what the Gang of Six had proposed. But the speakers team didnt consider the differences to be insurmountable, assuming the two sides could also settle on a revenue number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html
If the article is to be believed and taken at face value in its entirety, it appears the President rejected a proposal to raise the Social Security age.
I said in another thread, these discussions aren't so much about demanding the President protect Social Security as much as they are attempts to prove that he has no intention of doing so. That is why what he says will not matter to those pushing this angle. They'll simply parse his words and claim he still intends to cut the program. It will always be wait-and-see, just as it was during the President's first term.
Given that this would have ruined the President (Republicans would have had a field day), either Boehner is a fool or the President is shrewd.
Still, why not focus on what the President is saying now instead of harping on year-old anonymous reports?
upi402
(16,854 posts)That's why.
Forget what Obama SAYS in speeches. He is a politician. He is fallible. For my money, I'd pay attention to what he pressures our leaders to push. That speaks more truth than political speeches, irl.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)That's why.
Forget what Obama SAYS in speeches. He is a politician. He is fallible....
...are you going to hold his "feet to the fire" if you're going to ignore what he says?
It seems you're basically advocating the use of baseless speculation.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I missed his acceptance speech. I know he's itching to get this done, but wow, to mention it on the same night of election is stunning.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)What is being tossed around as far as "62" being the age one can first receive (greatly reduced) benefits?
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm
Fuck it. I'll retire at 62 (if still an option), and become even less of a consumer than I am now. And I won't be alone. That'll be good for the consumer-driven economy.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)flamingdem
(39,308 posts)They're usually pretty responsive if they get enough people upset.
She is an idiot if she said this, I'm disappointed, that's near Paul Ryan territory!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Does this 1%er even have a CLUE how much medical insurance premiums are for people over 65??????
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)judesedit
(4,437 posts)was said. This is probably another instance of something being taken out of context. If the medicare age is raised, there must be something else available in its place. Wake up, people. This was probably put out be a rw mole who's trying to get the dems to act like rethugs. Don't buy into it.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)That would be one hell of an accomplishment to get by for nearly 12 years on this site and not be discovered.
appacom
(296 posts)yet another "chicken little" moment. What in hell do people think Obama is, a fool? If the age is raised, you can believe Obama will touch all the bases. You don't achieve greatness through stupid lies and betrayal. He never lied to us; he said there's got to be sacrifice everywhere, and his very inclusion of unions and progressive organizing groups was done specifically to get their help in setting critical priorities.
Everybody wants to jump the gun, anticipating what the president is thinking and what he's going to do. Nobody knows. The only thing we do know is that his actions will be guided by principles shaped by his years as a community organizer.
Questioning Obama's trustworthiness from a leftist perspective is no less damaging than all the slanderous things rightwingers have been spitting for years. Don't be a tool of the crazies.
Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. It runs right through DU too.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Otherwise, you're the one spouting misinformed propaganda.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)here he is telling us not to freak out when they propose cutting Medicare: title of column "Liberals hold your fire"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/michael-tomasky-on-how-liberals-need-to-hold-their-anti-obama-fire.html
Add to this the knowledge that it is Obamas inclination, by temperament and instinct, to do a deal. And people who are inclined toward wanting to do deals will give up things that people who are not so inclined wont. Last year, in the deal with John Boehner that didnt hold, he floated $360 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts. White House ally Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Marylandno Blue Dog he, by a long shotyesterday floated the possibility of raising the Medicare eligibility age. So. What happens if Obama puts something like that on the table?
Before liberals rush to the barricades chanting ¡no pasaran! I would urge everyone to take a breath and think back to exactly this time four years ago. Every pundit in town was saying the Republicans were in disarray. Obama was riding high. It was going to be a glorious four years.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. The spin is ON!
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Write her...it felt good.
http://melissaharrisperry.com/contact.html
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I included a link to this thread.
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)trixie
(867 posts)We have the oldest people working and the young people with young families are having a hard time finding a good job with benefits. At my place of work we have at least half our workforce over the age of 65. We have not hired anyone in 6 years.
At our place of work you need a masters degree to be hired on staff. When I graduated grad school 21 years ago I "paid my dues" and worked 1 year part time and then got hired full time. Now grad students are working up to 7 years part time, no benefits, no vac or sick days etc. How can you raise a family?
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)employment decisions.
You do know that for every year past the retirement age that you don't take SS benefits you increase them by 8%. It's a very smart decision to work a few years past the retirement age.
mythology
(9,527 posts)There isn't some fixed and finite number of jobs. We currently have a job shortage, but that's not something that can simply be fixed by moving some people to small fixed income levels ie Social Security.
If older workers keep their jobs, they will have additional discretionary income which unless they are exceedingly wealthy will probably be spent which in turn stimulates the economy.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)It's not that I don't believe that you heard it, but it happens all the time that when posters report what they heard on TV they sometimes mishear or misconstrue. I've learned that unless I hear it or see it written with a byline, I tend to take a wait and see attitude.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)rachel, ed, sharpton, bashir and odonnell say it, then we're fucked. One person does not a plurality make. As far as ms. perry is concerned, she bears watching. Might be an undercover 'third wayer'.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)she supported the Keystone Pipeline.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)didn't know that. Undercover blue dog?
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)This is not the first time she's expressed questionable opinions. It'll be interesting to see what line politicians and other journalists take in coming weeks.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... breath life back into the Republican Party. Think we got our asses kicked in 2010?
That was barely a warmup compared to what will happen in '14.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1.5 trillion dollar surplus to spend again. Let's invade Iran.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)putting the money they stole from SS back in the "lock box"?
plethoro
(594 posts)just one more reason to sustain that opinion. We definitely seemed to be enamored of anti-heroes. I never could figure it out.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Millions more people will see early death, tragedy, utter poverty from such a change, while paying rich people to make sure they aren't hurt.
So if people like this are going to visit death and pain on others, they better get ready. 'Cause they are making enemies of people who will have nothing left to lose.
Really stupid.
valerief
(53,235 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)kooljerk666
(776 posts)and they are not very fond of MSNBC in general.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/9/tavis_smiley_cornel_west_on_the
I am gettin ready to block MSNBC like I have everything I consider crap blocked.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Folks will continue believing that the hosts at MSNBC is the best freaking thing since sliced bread. I'm talking about ALL OF THEM. Melissa, Ed, Al and yes even Rachel. Well, one has the courage to tell the truth on many occasions and anger both sides of the electorate, and that is Chris Matthews but even he's a part of the 1% club....to be completely honest.
As for Tavis Smiley well, he was on MSNBC on election night I'm sure (can't find the video). Not sure if he was there to provide a voice of reason or to just receive a "talking head" fee but either way, he was there.
Dr. Cornel West summed up quite nicely what the "African-American" crew at MSNBC is to do. Or in other words, why their TRUE job is....
"CORNEL WEST: And Brother Tavis is being very kind, because hes right. I love Brother Mike Dyson, too, but were living in a society where everybody is up for sale. Everything is up for sale. And he and Brother Sharpton and Sister Melissa and others, they have sold their souls for a mess of Obama pottage. And we invite them back to the black prophetic tradition after Obama leaves. But at the moment, they want insider access, and they want to tell those kind of lies. They want to turn their back to poor and working people."
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/9/tavis_smiley_cornel_west_on_the
Raising the Medicare age to 67 or 70, how about 75 while we're at it. This was probably the plan all along. Politics is directly about planning ones' future plots or "talking points". Specifically, paid and brought media resources (i.e. MHP, AL, ED & Rachel) start the "slow talk" of throwing out "teasers" on why raising Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70 or above.
To do this, they add "code words" like "fiscal cliff", "time clock", "Spending Cuts", "financial disaster" or "middle class tax hikes" in with explaining why its a MUST to raise the retirement age for SSN and Medicare.
The day I'm STILL waiting on is when folks stop "hero worshiping" media personalities telling them HOW TO THINK,follow INDEPENDENT MEDIA who don't kiss ass-ets in D.C. to collect a paycheck and investigate issues impacting their financial livelihoods, for themselves.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Good recommendation and we do have to stay awake and do our own thinking. Being a fan isn't enough.
PufPuf23
(8,748 posts)The best thing for the health of the American people and the economy would be to have Medicare for all and de-couple health care from employment (and lowering SS retirement age).
The MSM (even Rachel) are propogandists for neo-liberalism.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,951 posts)for the lower class it should be 50.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)With raising the age limit. People are living longer so it makes sense to raise the age requirement. I'm pretty sure they will put in steps for people that might have retire earlier then expected.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Let's ask all black men to work beyond their average life expectancy.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)A higher age requirement.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Raising the age limit is essentially transferring money from people who die young (working class black men) to people who don't (wealthy white women).
Black men can expect to live to 67.5. White women can expect to live to 80.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/321004
I'm not surprised to hear her say this, because she is part of the demographic most likely to benefit from the change.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Life Expectancy of the Living Dead
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/life-expectancy-of-the-living-dead/
Life, Death and Deficits
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/life-death-and-deficits.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
"Now, life expectancy at age 65 has risen, too. But the rise has been very uneven since the 1970s, with only the relatively affluent and well-educated seeing large gains. Bear in mind, too, that the full retirement age has already gone up to 66 and is scheduled to rise to 67 under current law.
This means that any further rise in the retirement age would be a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who arent living much longer, and who, in many cases, have jobs requiring physical effort thats difficult even for healthy seniors. And these are precisely the people who depend most on Social Security."
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)That the better educated are living longer. Shouldn't we try getting everyone better educated instead of ignoring the on coming train.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I'm all for education, but not everyone is cut out to be a Ph.D.-level geneticist. There will always be a need for folks who provide labor that doesn't require a lot of education. They should be treated with respect, paid a living wage with full benefits, and not have their social safety net fucked with.
Don't be duped by the "incoming train" nonsense. Hell, I've ridden in cabs with drivers who are high school dropouts and they clearly see through the bullshit. Why don't you?
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Duped. I would roll with almost anything she says much like I would with rmaddows.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)And I've tuned out the theater known as Corporate Media for years, including MSNBC. Too little substance, too much focus on personality. I want FACTS, not Infotainment.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Medicare is more efficient than the alternatives, so that kind of cost shifting isn't saving people money.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Big brains in dc didn'tthink of anything.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)...are the same great big brains that ignored the growing housing bubble that eventually collapsed and ruined the economy. These are the same big brains that cheered on the European austerity program that has resulted in mass unemployment and worsening debt to GDP ratios. Nobody should care what they're thinking and why.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)That of black men is 67.5 years.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)question everything
(47,425 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,073 posts)As usual.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Begins at 2:40
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46979745/#49866295
ProSense
(116,464 posts)isn't advocating a position. She appeared to be presenting what each side wants in the negotiation to make a point about Norquist.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)From your unedited original post: >>>Mellissa Harris Perry Just Said: "It's Perfectly Fine to Raise the Medicare Eligibility Age<<<
Whats up with that?
Don
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Yes, even when you know the average life expectancy for a black man is 67.5, it's reasonable for him to work til he's 69.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)... "It's Perfectly Fine to Raise the Medicare Eligibility Age", if you don't mind.
Don
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Do you think that's better than the original?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Good heavens.
I'd say it would be reasonable to let it go up with life expectancy, but not if your statistic is true. Or at least, not up from where it is now until that's equal to white men or at least a few years beyond the retirement age.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)But differences in life expectancy among various groups is only one reason it's a bad idea. Medicare is more cost effective than the alternatives, so having 65-66 year olds on various other forms of coverage doesn't save any money.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Third Way positions. There was a postal worker on one of the radio shows yesterday, who has plantar warts on her feet and rotator cuff issues from carrying heavy bags of mail. She's in her early sixties if I remember correctly or anyway at an age where she is hanging in there until she can retire at 65. She wondered how she was going to work until she was in her seventies. I mean some of us can still work at jobs that aren't that physically demanding, but most of us can't. I think it's criminal for these democrats to even think that way. I wish I remembered more but I'm sure you can find a lot of stories like this out there. Anyway, it's one of the things they are trying to ram down our throats.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)And I plan to let every elected official I can contact know just that. It makes me absolutely furious.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021839199
This is closer to reality for Democrats.
Response to Oilwellian (Original post)
Post removed
GoCubsGo
(32,073 posts)Me thinks Melissa needs to get out and spend a few weeks doing manual labor before she spouts that kind of crap. How about it, Ms. Harris-Perry? You willing to go be a nurse's aid or a nurse, and move patients around for a month or two? Or, an archaeologist, who spends her day shoveling dirt? Or, you could scrub floors or lay carpet day in and day out. Then you can get back to us about how great an idea it would be to do that kind of thing until you're 67.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Lot's of people have been living in Dreamyland with President Dreamboat. They all need to snap out of it today, this moment. MHP is getting her marching orders straight from the WH spin machine. When you hear her cooing about the reasonableness of cutting the safety net, you can no longer have any doubts about the machine being in motion or where it wants to go. Lots of you have been wrong and you have a lot of making up to do, and not much time to do it.
If you can FINALLY let go of the absolutely baseless identification with this Republican in a Donkeysuit, and motivate your asses down to Washington DC to put the fear into your Congressional Reps and Senators, you MIGHT just have a chance at stopping this epic screwjob. MAYBE. You've wasted a lot of time and initiative, lolling around in dreamland spinning fantasies about the Great Obama and how he's on your side. He's on HIS side. He's never been anywhere else. He and his lovely family have no intention of sharing your fate. He wants to be remembered as a figure that "transcended" party and began the breakdown of party lines in this country. The only way he can do that is to secure the breakdown of a previously non-negotiable position of the Democratic Party: the sanctity of the social safety net programs. This will usher in a new era of bipartisan consensus in this country and UTTER FUCKING MISERY for the vast majority of its people.
Let me warn you one more time: ONCE these programs go onto the table for cuts THEY WILL NEVER COME OFF THE TABLE. Every four or eight years or so, the question won't be should we regard Social Security and Medicare as untouchable, inviolable parts of the social contract, but rather BY HOW MUCH SHOULD WE CUT THEM?
You lot are deciding the shape of that future RIGHT NOW. The only way this disaster could ever go forward is if a Democratic President like Obama initiates it. And the only way he could succeed at this historic grand betrayal is if you, his loyal base of supporters ALLOW HIM TO DO IT.
So far, you have been the perfect Good Germans enabling him to screw you over at will.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)for some people.
People with dangerous/"hard" jobs should see 55 as their age to retire....
people like..waitresses/laborers/hairdressers/cooks/sales-floor workers/roofers/coal miners/etc
people who sit at a desk and type. maybe a later age would be fine (exceptions for people with obvious medical issues such as visual problems)
people who are lucky enough to have a pension plan that allows them to retire at an age + years worked combination should also be able to take early (reduced compensation) SS ..
Medicare should also be a buy-in option for people 50-64 so they could afford to retire earlier and open up opportunities for the younger ones who are not-so-patiently waiting for them to move aside. Many would love to retire, but cannot afford the medical insurance costs for 14 + years until medicare kicks in for them
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)We don't need more people in the labor force and need less and less as we move into the future all more people does is reduce life time wages for most people and the program gets worse off.
Then all this talk of the ease of a desk job till 70 is batshit crazy as well, even if bodies are better preserved, the minds tend to be less sharp, health issues mount, and employers are less inclined to hire and retain.
There isn't a single 60 year old in my job, none even in management. There are very few 50 year olds and at 40, I'm an old dog, older or the same age as management.
I'm not going to be able to keep up the pace at 60 if my job is still even around and by 70, I'll be long gone wishing Walmart still needed greeters no matter how much I want to keep doing it, which I won't because I'll be burnt out and far too slow to be an asset.
No one is talking a mandatory work life expiration date here, if you are in demand and able then rock on but it is folly to pretend that such will be the average condition for workers.
It foolish, cruel, and soulless along with being counter productive to the asserted aim, why do you want to expand on a glut of workers? What in the world is in it for you? Trying to reduce labor costs?
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)There are two choices:
provide meaningful work for all who want/need it (no matter their age) and pay them a living wage
pay to support the non-workers.
we cannot "wish away" the "unproductive".
.............................................................................................................
Thu May 17, 2012, 07:10 PM
Star Member SoCalDem (98,363 posts)
It all boils down to : Do we take care of "them" or do we just kill them?
Inside EVERY society you will find:
people who seem to enjoy work, and who willingly look for more to do as they finish tasks
people who work because they fear reprisal if they do not, and who do as little as possible
people who seem capable, but whose personal reasons prevent them from doing much work
young who cannot work (and should not be expected to)
very old who cannot work (and should not be expected to)
handicapped who cannot do much or any work
Regardless of the category, these people ARE in the society. They all have the same basic needs...food.... shelter.... water.... companionship... education...health care... a decent life
We ALL need to realize that these people, in varying percentages, have always been with us, and always will be.
The only variable is in how we "deal" with them.
We can grow up, and figure out that "some" people will need assistance. and yes, occasionally a person/ people "might" take more than we think they should, or may be totally "undeserving" of any help.
Or we accept the fact that we (as a society) have no use for these people, and we might as well "get rid of 'them' altogether." Some might say we are already wandering down that path to some degree. We lock up millions of people who turned to crime. We warehouse old sick people in places we would never want to be.. We accept the malnourishment of poor children we will never meet. We under educate millions of children.
We have the "don't-give-a-crap" part down pat.. Now we are just dithering over how it will play out.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)make any such assertion that I was calling for the Soylent factory when I'm pointing out that need for labor flat isn't there and cannot reasonably be expected in the future.
The current economic system isn't sustainable. Eventually, there will be very minimal need for labor, certainly not full time with living wages. There is no reasonable model. Instead, workers and former workers will have to share the fruits of productivity instead of piling up wealth for a few. Perfectly healthy and willing folks with in demand skills will work what we think of as part time.
Raising the age has no value, it just adds to a labor pool that cannot absorb those folks.
We won't be transitioning to this in one swoop but an orderly start would be lowering the retirement age.
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)She should try physical work for a day.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If President Obama said "just raise the cap," if Majority Leader Reid said "just raise the cap," if Speaker Pelosi said "just raise the cap," it might be on the table.
They haven't.
still_one
(92,060 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)if President Obama said "just raise the cap," if Majority Leader Reid said "just raise the cap," and if Speaker Pelosi said "just raise the cap," "Then they are idiots if they really said that."
Are you saying that those who say "just raise the cap" are idiots?
still_one
(92,060 posts)Thought I was responding to the assertion that Pelosi said to raise the age not the cap
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Because Pelosi has said a number of things over the years, the confusion is understandable. This is particularly true when a statement isn't accompanied by explanatory text. I overlooked that.
Basically, with respect to my paraphrase of Pelosi's 2006 statement after the overwhelming Democratic victory, Pelosi rejected the views of other House Democrats and the public generally with the following:
" 'I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,' Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference."
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html
still_one
(92,060 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)paid back to me if my current financial track continues. I want to still have the option of Medicare available. Maybe the solution is to identify people like me and see whether those people are willing to take no money from the system when they reach retirement age. The money saved can be left in the system to improve it's assets.
MHP is just throwing out an idea. My guess is that she won't need the system.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)people? Koch brothers should be laughing out loud!!!
ReRe
(10,597 posts)K&R
Raising it is totally out of the question. If we can't lower it, then leave it the Hell alone!
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)brokechris
(192 posts)how would it impact someone who is 61 right now? (My parents are 61 and 69).
I'm not so worried about my self--OK it sucks but I will have a few years to plan for it---but it is really evil for someone who is 61 and really can't change their planning....
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It wouldn't include people 55 and older.
brokechris
(192 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Response to Oilwellian (Original post)
Post removed
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)She's so prissy and phony, I never could stand her. I love how she now thinks it's fine to screw the elderly out of benefits for 2 years.
Let's make her go without her salary for 2 years, and see how she likes it.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)I'll never forget her claim that if you criticized President Obama, it meant you were racist.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)BlueinOhio
(238 posts)The GAO found out that most workers do not live long enough to collect retirement. Rob Portman was all for companies putting a pertcentage of money into retirement account since most were going to die anyway. The article was in the Washington post few years ago. There is a lie it can not be both ways.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)There's also a lot of talk he may become Obama's next Treasury Secretary. Did you know he just loves the Ryan Plan?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)When Obama announces it, let's have the pitchforks ready.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)comment by a TV host that isn't even advocating a position, one made in an off-the-cuff way (there isn't even a trend here), is being used to represent the next move by Democrats and generating such vitriol toward Perry.
Yet this point by Reich is all but ignored.
Robert Reich: Why BP Isnt a Criminal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021841131
Perry isn't a member of Congress. She's not in the decision-making loop. She has no sway in terms of where the Democrats come out on this issue.
Democrats stiffen spine against trimming benefits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021839199
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It is good to see people exposing it and calling it out.
Thank you VERY much for the video you are working on; we desperately need this kind of activism and education.
BeyondGeography
(39,341 posts)The real threat is free market retirement:
But whats the rush? Why do we need to deal with Social Security in a hurry in the next few weeks of the lame-duck session, or 2013? Why cant reform of Social Security wait until later in this decade, or the 2020s?
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/the_case_against_a_grand_bargain/
Thekaspervote
(32,691 posts)I'm a registered nurse.. Worked in the field for 30+ years. Studies show nurses have the second most mentally stressful job and the 5th most physically stressful job. This is just one example of many where raising the the retirement just won't work!! I have taken good care of myself over the years, mentally and physically sharp, but every nurse my age knows it's time to let someone else, someone younger call the shots, start the IVs and make the decisions that might seriously impact a life that hangs in the balance. Laborers, construction workers, wait staff, housekeepers, the list is endless. They may not be making the same kinds of deciisions, but they cannot continue to work like their 30!! It's disrespectful to say the least... And totally unfair. Obama ran on fairness for all. He better keep that promise, or all dems will suffer the consequences.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Those who have jobs too strenuous to make it that long will probably have to file for SS disability.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)dchill
(38,432 posts)No, Melissa, it's not "reasonable to raise the retirement age"... What's reasonable is for millionaires to start paying their fair share of taxes. What's reasonable is to raise or abolish the cap on Social Security contribution. What's reasonable is to cut defense spending by at least half. What's reasonable is to stop saying that it's reasonable to raise the retirement age. Be reasonable, Melissa.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Until you've worked a blue-collar job for 40 years and you go to bed every night and wake every morning with a body wracked with pain, please do not bless us with your opinions on what constitutes a "reasonable" retirement age.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)just dying to be filled by workers in their late 60s.
What's wrong with these idiots?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Skittles
(153,104 posts)THEY HAVE ALREADY RAISED IT FOR MANY OF US