Hey Boomers, let's rejoice! The reason our Soc. Security is delayed for two years is

[truedelphi]

A cause for celebration. (if you are a defense contractor.)

Since those of us who have been paying into Social Security, some of us since the age of 16, now must wait until at least 66 if not 67, we should ask our government officials exactly why the need for austerity?

is it for a worthy cause, such as the government itself underwriting the full cost of a college education for all college bound HS graduates? (As happens today down in Australia...)

Is it so we can revise the ACA to be more about Single Payer Universal HC for all, with no more need for co-pays and deductibles and lengthy fights with insurers about whether we rally need antibiotics after a major heart operation?

Is it to put music and art and dance and drama back in our grammar schools and HS's?

I could certainly accept the austerity if the delay in my receiving my full Social Security benefits were for any of those items.

But what is really going on?

Look at these headlines:
[h2][font color=red]
Cost of F 35 jet fighter to soar to nearly 1.5 trillion dollars:[/h2][/font color=red]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329

(Reuters) - The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters.

[h2][font color=red]
Most expensive unneeded defense project in history has a jet engine that catches fire! [/h2][/font color=red]
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/07/sources-engine-definitely-blame-june-f-35-fire
A June 23 fire that severely damaged a Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is “definitely” related to the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 after-burning turbofan, multiple sources told USNI News.

The Pentagon grounded the entire F-35 fleet on July 3 after it became apparent the June fire on an Air Force variant of the fighter was much more serious than originally thought. The fire, which started at the rear of the aircraft while the jet was taking-off, was initially believed to be a one off incident possibly related to the jet’s integrated power pack.

[woo me with science]

1. Food stamp cuts and pension smoothing, too!!!!!11!1!

We can't even get the basics in this country anymore. We have been acclimatized to a nearly daily parade of assaults on all of us and our standard of living, while the MIC is fed without question. Gotta pay for those death machines.

Thank you for this post. To the Greatest Page.

[sabrina 1]

2. And one of the main reasons they have succeeded in these assaults is because they have

enablers who will defend the system THEY set up no matter how bad it gets. If the people simply refused to accept their corporate funded candidates, they would be wasting their money but as we see every day, we are hearing the same old reasons to support Corporate Candidates 'the other guy is worse'.

[daleanime]

16. +1

[rhett o rick]

33. +1

[TheKentuckian]

37. Got that right and here we go again

[Zorra]

59. +1 nt

[nationalize the fed]

68. +1

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/

[sabrina 1]

85. That is an excellent link, thank you.

Great question, 'what is National Security'? Been asking that for a long time. 44,000 Americans dying for lack of healthcare? THAT is a National Security issue. What would it cost out of those budgets at the link for WAR to provide every American with National HC? Probably a FRACTION of the cost of all those weapons of death.

Great link, thanks. This does need to be a movement. And it will have to come from the people themselves, politicians are not working for us except for a very few.

[truedelphi]

98. What a great link that is.

Very much appreciate you getting me over to that website.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

74. You must be talking about the "Any Democrat" camp.

Fuck them.

Really, really fuck them.

[sabrina 1]

84. Yes, they talk down to voters, attack them for simply 'wondering out loud' if we couldn't

do better. Admonish them for pointing out when someone who is NOT a Democrat is actually saying the things we WANT DEMS TO SAY, people like Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. Their only effort at discussion when these FACTS are pointed is 'Fuck Ron Paul'. What do they expect to accomplish with this kind of garbage? Explain WHY we can't get a Dem, or maybe HOW it can be done, to say what we expect THEM to say, but the old drive-bys with the little emoticons etc, what is THAT supposed to accomplish?

And that is why we lose even when we win. Because politicians know they do not have to EARN our votes, they take them for granted and we are expected to just 'hold your nose, shut up and vote' every time.

I wonder if they know how bad this strategy has become at this stage of the game? They refuse to acknowledge that it lost us the 2010 election so they learned nothing from that. And if we lose again, they will resort to the same old 'blame the voters' game.

It got old long ago. Most of us are not politicians or political operatives, just ordinary people watching the country disintegrate and trying to stop it from doing so. We the voters don't need the nastiness of these political operatives. We need answers and we're not getting them.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

107. "And that is why we lose even when we win."

So true.

[FiveGoodMen]

90. Couldn't agree more!

[woo me with science]

75. +1

[gldstwmn]

91. I started working at the age

of 14 and our congress won't even extend my emergency unemployment benefits so I can stay afloat until I find another job. I thoroughly expect to work until I'm 75.

[truedelphi]

99. God almighty do I ever hear you.

Our congress is simply another name for "Corporate Enablers paid off with favors of cushy jobs at plush executive offices." All that is necessary for those jobs to come their way (and in the case of ex-Presidents, these "Charities&quot is the usual quid pro quo.

[Enthusiast]

3. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

The F-35 should not be built at all. Even if the engines didn't catch fire the plane is a huge mistake and far too expensive.

[L0oniX]

5. Why fuck around with this tinker toy shit ...go for the fucking DeathStar.

[Enthusiast]

6. OMG! It might scare 'em to death.

[nationalize the fed]

69. It scared me

[L0oniX]

4. GOTV ...more of the same is good cause the other guy will destroy the country.

[grahamhgreen]

7. F#ck the endless wars against the evil faction of the week. All they do

is create the evil faction of the future, IMHO.

[ReRe]

19. +1

[Plucketeer]

8. Military-Industrial Complex's

Crowning jewel achievement. And my congressman has NEVER asked me if I thought we needed these. Geez - I wonder why???

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. What a perfect perpetual money pit....

A plane that self destructs, thereby increasing the need for MORE of them year after year.!

It's pure genius!

[WillyT]

9. Huge K & R !!!

[LibDemAlways]

10. I turn 62 in November and have already

signed up for my reduced benefit which represents a raise from the poverty level wages I make as a substitute teacher. In my case the difference in anticipated benefit between now and full retirement age (for me 66) is only a couple hundred per month and I need the money like yesterday. Also, no guarantee I'll even make it to 66, and the bean counters are probably hoping I won't.

[Ino]

11. Same here. (nt)

[LibDemAlways]

13. I always enjoy reading Social Security advice columnists

who tell people to wait until age 70. Not exactly grounded in reality. Glad someone is in the same boat with me.

[Paper Roses]

34. When my late husband was eligible for SS, he talked to an accountant:

The advice then, and I think it was good:
Take it early, who knows where you will be in a few more years and who knows what will happen to SS.

It was good advice. My dear late husband died of a stroke after collecting for 3 years.
It was not much but it was a help to us in our old age.

That check is missed but not as much as my dear husband.
Life plays nasty tricks on us. Remember the old adage:

A bird in the hand............

[japple]

39. Great advice. My husband died at 64 years plus 11-3/4 months. Never collected a dime.

I made sure to start collecting widow's benefits when I reached age 60. I still work a part time job that (fortunately for me) gives benefits--or, rather, insurance for a group rate.

[Ino]

60. I'd wait if I could...

but I saw my self-employment income halved immediately after the 2008 meltdown. And it's gone down slowly every year since then, until the past year I've not made enough to pay my modest mortgage/utilities, much less luxuries like... food?! Luckily I'd been socking some away in an IRA. Too bad I lost all the interest and $1500 of the principal in the 2008 crash! But I cashed it out as soon as I turned 58.5, and it's been supplementing my income and paying for emergencies. I have JUST ENOUGH to last until SS payments kick in (barring any more emergencies!)

I was dismayed to find out that, though I turn 62 on Sept. 3, I will never collect anything, not even a pro-rated amount, for September. Just another reason to hate my mother

[BobbyBoring]

80. it's grounded in reality from one standpoint

There are few places where you can earn 7% on your money.
However, if the powers that be have their way, that money will be in their hands not ours.
So as you said, it's not really grounded in reality.

[truedelphi]

15. I totally understand where you are coming from.

Unfortunately it is the very well off, who don't understand what reality is like for most people, who eagerly tell us that since we "are all living longer," we all should be pleased as punch to simply work a few more years.

But Number One: Older people who are not well really cannot go on working and working.

Number Two: Many of us know from experience that people over Age 55 are simply not being hired, as the insurance premiums for that age group are very costly. (Not sure whether the ACA added to this or not -- I was told way back in 2008 that I was in the "no hire" category due to my "advanced age.&quot

[LibDemAlways]

18. As a substitute teacher I have no benefits and am

in the lowest paid job category in the district. I took a break from full time work to raise my daughter, and by the time I went back, it was obvious that the district was hiring only young college grads they could pay as litte as possible. Subbing was my only recourse and even that has become dog eat dog, as subs fight for the few crumbs available.

It's incredibly tough out there and for some of us Social Security is the only financial security we have.

[Curmudgeoness]

46. "Social Security is the only financial security we have."

Isn't that the truth. I am so grateful that this program even exists. At least this country wasn't always run by assholes.

[maddiemom]

61. Exactly the same with me. I was willing to sub outside of my fields, so for quite a while could sub

nearly every day. I was one of only a couple of subs requested by the teachers. This was good for quite a while---until the increasing influx of young teachers who couldn't find full time work. We were all paid the same for subbing, of course, but there were more and more complaints that only a few of us were getting called all the time. Now teachers are not allowed to request a particular sub. I took Social Security at 62 and have been way better off. I did continue to work part -time retail on the side (which I also did to supplement subbing) until recently. You are allowed to earn SOME income while receiving Social Security.

[LibDemAlways]

63. It's my understanding that I can earn up to $15K without

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)

a benefit reduction. Since I make a princely $110 a day subbing usually 2 days a week, it's a sure thing I will never come close to the limit. $110.00 represents a raise from the $106.00 subs were paid the last seven years.

I've decided to spend some spare time organizing other subs and educating lawmakers about how crappy sub pay is in hopes they'll follow Oregon's footsteps and mandate a minimum daily amount for subs based on 85% of a beginning teacher's average pay rate statewide. Currently, every public school sub in Oregon makes a minimum of $171.50 per day.

[maddiemom]

92. If you really get into organizing subs in this way, let me know if I can help.

I was a tenured teacher with six years experience when I followed my then husband in an out of state career move and started a family. At the time I felt very lucky to be able to be a stay at home mom while our daughter was a pre-schooler (although she started Montessori school at three and was reading at a sixth grade level when she started first grade--at a total loss with math subjects, sadly). By the time I was ready to go back to teaching, I had an M.ED. and a number of credits toward a PHD. I could sub my butt off, but get hired full time? I would have been third from the top of the salary scale in the one district I knew the best (in academic terms), plus six years of experience. Another long story, but did you have the experience that GPA was way more important than excellent to superior classroom ratings when you actually taught? I know there's been considerable grade inflation, because I felt I'd been gifted with a bit myself when I went for my second certification. No potential district that was hiring ever cared about my actual classroom ratings, although they were very favorable from more than one principal, plus a principal who observed me , also very favorably when I was subbing. A teacher in the building had requested me while she took a sabbatical. The school board interviewed me, but decided on another applicant who was a friend of one of them. She had a seriously ailing child at home, and I ended up filling in for her (at daily sub wages, although they docked her for those days) about half the semester. OK, I'm finished venting. Sorry! I'm sure there a lot more of us out there, however, since I know several personally.

[LibDemAlways]

115. I earned my teaching credential back in 1975 at a

time when there were a glut of baby boomers becoming teachers. The only public school jobs available were for subs in the inner city, which would have meant an hour commute. So I accepted a job at a private school for a truly craptastic salary and stuck with it for years until my daughter was born. In the meantime, I earned units toward a Master's. Anyhow, I stayed home until my daughter was in middle school. When I went job hunting, I found that my age and experience worked against me as schools only want to hire wet behind the ears new grads. So, the choice was classroom aide for a special ed student or subbing. I don't have much background in Special Ed, so I went with subbing. I could write a book about the injustices and insults subs are subjected to daily. However, I suffered in silence until 1) the district instituted an automated calling system that gives those willing to PAY for it a head's up for new assignments, and 2) the $4.00 a day "raise" was announced with great fanfare. Really? Could they spare it? This is a suburban district where 107 of the employees - teachers and administrators - make more than $100K in salary and benefits yearly (info gleaned from a public employees' transparency website). And they can't throw more of a bone to the college educated, credentialed substitute teachers who get no benefits and haven't seen a pay increase in seven years? And, to add insult to injury, we are now asked to pay to get better access to jobs. Sorry for the rant, but I'm pissed! I will be contacting the sub organization in Oregon to find out how they got started and what they had to do to get the legislature to act. I will keep you informed.

[truedelphi]

97. Way to go, LibDemAlways.

One way to help see if they have help for you: check out the Community Rights movement.

Google Paul Cienfuegos, and community rights movement.

Also, check out your local ballot information packet. Often people running for office have some of the same goals you might have and you can be each other's ally.

[LibDemAlways]

114. Thanks, will do.

[Suziq]

45. Same here

I turn 62 in October and applied. First deposit is scheduled for December 24th.

[fasttense]

66. Take a very careful read of your Social Security benefits FULL RETIREMENT IS AGE 70.

The gubermint has played a very slick trick on you. To get the maximum monthly benefit payments from Social Security you have to wait until you reach the age of 70. They like to disguise it and claim you are actually getting 132% at age 70 but really you are getting only 68% of your full payments at age 66. You are getting 32% less if you retire at 66 than if you retired at age 70.

The gubermint thinks if they wait long enough you are going to die anyway so they don't have to pay you back the money they took (doubled because we boomers already paid for our parents Social Security).

[leftstreet]

12. DURec

[Rex]

14. The biggest crime against Americans? The MIC.

[ReRe]

20. Hear! Hear!

x 100 to the nth

[RKP5637]

51. Actually, against all living things. If it kills, it gets top priority. Sick F'en country. n/t

[daleanime]

17. K&R....

[Helen Borg]

21. Do you know how many people

who would get their pension at 65 will never get it at 67 because they pass away in the meanwhile? Isn't that cruel?

[truedelphi]

22. I don't know the statistics. But everyone I know over 60 has a horror tale

About someone they know who has committed suicide, or else has simply gone down hill, due to not being able to afford both rent and meds, or food and meds. And eventually, when your body can't take "going downhill' anymore, the body quits on you.

[Helen Borg]

30. I looked at the lifetables ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Excerpt_from_CDC_2003_Table_1.pdf

Looks like that for every 100,000 people, about 3,000 die every year between the age of 65 and 67. I may be wrong, but if the US has 300 M people, this would be about 9 M dying between the age of 65 and 67 each year? Is that possible?...

[truedelphi]

36. That is an interesting observation.

I had heard that already the Baby Boomers, who were supposed to be 14% of the population at this point, are now only 10% or 11%.

My mom died recently at the age of ninety. Her best friend, also ninety, survived her.

I am not yet 65, but have already lost my two best friends both at age 59, due to cancer.

Mom's generation grew up on organic food and organic meat, although they didn't know or use those terms. (Pesticides really came into widespread use after WWII, when Big Industry needed an alternative use for the nerve agents developed for possible use in the war.) Many people of my mom's era had great tasting spring water, and most people had access to a personal garden, if not theirs, then a neighbors or grandparents. People didn't grow up and consume aspartame and other poisons, in an effort to look like models.

Five times as much radiation now circles the globe, as did in the calendar year 1946. Add in the loss of life among Vietnam service people, both during and after the war, and the fact that early uses of technology were definite cancer causers (early X ray techs, even in the early 1960's, had huge rates of cancer in their population,) and the loss of 3,000 people ages 65 to 67 per 100,000 could be very true.

[former9thward]

43. No.

There are not 300 M people between the age of 65 and 67. The 300 M is the total of all ages. It is not the clearest table in the world.

[Helen Borg]

79. So... the lifetable numbers assume 100,000 people

that age? So, they are basically death probability for people in that age range, right? So, there is about a 2.5% chance that people will die between 65 and 67. I guess you can estimate the % savings this way. That is why they are doing it, right?

[former9thward]

83. What they are saying

in a table only statisticians would love, is that for every 100,000 people 65 to 67 about 3000 of them will die in any given year. I don't know how many people are in that age range. But if there were a million people aged 65 to 67 in 2014 you could expect about 30,000 of them to die during the year. The overall U.S. death rate is about 1% a year. So in a population of 315 M you can expect about 3,150,000 people to die during the year.

[Helen Borg]

86. Right. So, 3% of people 65-67 die each year...

[truedelphi]

101. Thank you for the analysis you did with this table.

It brought a lot of clarity to the issue.

[questionseverything]

76. 90,000 a year

still significant

[Hissyspit]

88. Significant savings!

[whatchamacallit]

24. Yeah, but how about that S&P?

[japple]

25. What really kills me is to hear those financial advisors talk about how boomers should

have socked away at least $900,000.00 for retirement (or more!!!). Many of us are going to have to depend on Social Security and the kindness of strangers.

[Warpy]

29. Hey, it was only $2000 a year since the age of 20

Never mind that wages were so low in dollar amounts that most of us weren't making that much if we were working the entry level jobs 20 year old people got.

Those wages were much higher in purchasing power and the financial whiz kids who think the world came into being with their birth don't get that part, either.

[Adam051188]

26. :^(

[link:|

[BaggersRDumb]

27. Fuck the jets, we need to give more money to the Koch Bros and Walton family

There are lower middle class cons on the internet right now calling me an idiot because I want to tax corps like Burger King and Walmart, dont I know they are job creators?

Dont I know they can just move their company overseas?

Yes, I know that, and I say if they do that

SEIZE ALL AMERICAN ASSETS OVERNIGHT...LET THE GOVT RUN THE BUSINESS

Until we realize our way of practicing capitalism ONLY helps the one percent and by design harms everyone else, until all 99% of us realize that, we are in for some bad fucking times.

[Warpy]

28. Any congressman who votes (or voted) to raise the retirement age

must spend 6 months digging ditches before he casts his vote.

Pampered bureaucrats won't get it. They'll never get it until they are required to do this.

[madville]

38. It was a fairly bipartisan vote in 1983

The vote on HR 1900 to raise the age to 67 by 2022.

The Senate was pretty evenly split politically, I can't believe Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, and Launtenberg voted Aye on it. It passed 54-18 with 28 Senators not voting(probably due up for election right soon after the vote so they had to CYA).

[truedelphi]

55. Yep, further proof that both sides of the aisle have their strings pulled

By the same puppet masters.

And like George Carlin remarked, it sure the heck ain't you or me ' .

[PoliticAverse]

110. Here's a summary of what H.R. 1900 did...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

[japple]

41. Heh, heh! I can just picture it now. If you've never watched the movie

"Holes" go for it. It's based on a Jerry Spinnelli book of the same name and (I think) very appropriate. Aside: it's supposed to be a YA novel, but I loved both the book and the movie.

[SheilaT]

31. Okay, it's not as though the change to

getting what's called full benefits from age 65 to age 66 happened recently. That change was made back in 1983. And the age to start collecting early hasn't changed.

The biggest problem is that too many people have been bamboozled into thinking that the social welfare programs are nothing but drains on the economy, when they really make a serious infusion of cash into the economy.

As for pensions, I believe that pensions, even in their heyday such as it was, only covered about 45% of workers, and there were lots of restrictions that meant it was much harder to collect a pension than you might think, especially if you didn't stay in one job for at least twenty years, and often longer. Typically, your age an years with the company had to total some number, like 75, or you didn't get the pension. When I first went to work at a company that offered one, you had to be at least 25 years old and have worked there two years to get enrolled in the pension plan. I was 20 when I started, so I couldn't imagine being as old as 25, let alone 65.

[truedelphi]

35. Our household had its retirement

Pensions monies swept out to sea when M. was mis-diagnosed by Kaiser.

It took our savings to keep us on COBRA and to have some alt meds to keep him alive.

On the bright side, we were told that there was a good chance he'd be dead by mid-February of 2006 and he is still here, now healthier than ever.

Yet whenever some financial adviser is on TV saying that people need to save and save and save, I can only shake my head. For instance: Katrina ruined many people's lives, as they collected pennies on the dollar for home repairs when State Farm refused to pay the insured who should have had money coming to them.

Same with Hurricane Sandy. What do people do when they are forced to use their retirement funds for health matters or for saving their homes, while Big Insurers laugh themselves all the way to the next executive level pay hike?

Our government officials are all quite willing to tell us to shut up and accept austerity, but they let the RICO-ized plunder of Big Insurers destroy so many of us financially.

[SheilaT]

47. I can only hope that the ACA is

making COBRA go away. Sometimes it was a good deal, but all too often it passed a huge health insurance cost on to someone who could now not possibly afford it.

I have the good fortune to be very healthy, and even with that going on Medicare has cut my already trivial health costs down to almost nothing. Yeah, I'm paying a bit more out of pocket up front, so if I were to obsess on it I really am paying more, but it does not feel that way.

I honestly think that the ACA will lead to a true universal health care within a few years. This is one time I very much hope I am right.

[truedelphi]

52. The two hopes you mention are both things I

Hope for too.

[Sherman A1]

32. K&R

[madville]

40. Thankfully as a federal employee

I can start drawing my FERS Social Security Supplement at age 57, who knows how long that will be available though, need to hold out another decade or so.

[Brigid]

42. And the total screwing of the American worker is nearly complete.

Well done, 1%. Well done.

[truedelphi]

100. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^n/t

[still_one]

44. Actually, you can start collecting at 62.5, but it won't be your full benefits that you are entitled

to

[truedelphi]

54. That is a good point to emphasize.

It does cost a person something like 7 percent a year, so if someone retires at 65 rather than waiting till they turn 67, their lifetime benefits will be reduced each year by 14%.

But on the plus side, they have collected the 86% of what they should be getting for the extra two years.

[still_one]

56. That was my only point, everything else was right on. What really gets my goat is all these

wonderful experts in finance telling people they should wait until 70 to collect their social security.

Except in a small minority of cases, the 1%, if you know what I mean, most people should NOT wait until 70

I have no doubt the ryan plan would like to raise the age to 99, and of course that would solved the so-called "problem"

[davidpdx]

72. My mom turned 66 in June and got her first SS check

She is still working though. So her benefits over time will be reduced by 7% because she chose to get them a year early?

I don't really have any idea how it works as I haven't live in the US for a decade. My pension will come from the Korean Government and I may get a tiny bit from SS in the US (if I'm lucky).

[hughee99]

48. If it's any consolation, I'm 40. I will pay into SS my whole life

and fully expect not to ever get a check in return, at any age.

[BainsBane]

65. Same here

I'll work until I drop dead. I have no choice.

I've paid into SS since I was 13. None of it is going to me. It's all going to people like those on this site who can afford to retire.

[MineralMan]

49. OTOH, I started gettin SS at 62.

I did the math. During those four years, I received almost $48,000. I needed it, too. Work was hard to come by in those four years. So, how long am I likely to live, I asked myself, and how old would I be before I made up the difference. For me taking SS at 62 made good sense. That option is still available to anyone. Do the math, and make your choice.

Now, the economy has improved, and at age 69, I can earn as much as I like, and still get that check, too. Finally, I'm still paying into SS, and income.e I earn now is calculated into my payments. My SS continues to go up.

It is what it is. Do the math.

[mnhtnbb]

57. I used the same analysis to start collecting at 62.

I figured it would take 13 years for me to get even (I'd be 79) before I would have collected
the amount of money I'd collect between 62-66 (about $41,500) by taking the larger
payments starting at age 66, and that didn't take COLA into account for each year from 62-66.

Didn't make much sense to me to wait.

[MineralMan]

71. It's definitely worth making the calculations.

Many people find that taking SS at 62 makes excellent sense.

[Stardust]

50. I was under the impression that Social Security is funded by SocSec taxes, not the general fund...

[truedelphi]

53. Ooh Grasshopper,

The ways of Washington DC are duplicitous indeed.

On the one hand, the money that comes to any Social Security recipient is indeed from the Social Security taxes, and not the General Fund. Although the money is distributed by the General Fund.

Yet on the other hand, whenever there is any need to show the conservative voters that Washington DC elected officials are concerned about the 17 trillion dollar deficit, the first thing that pops into the mouths of the Beltway babes are the talking points of:

One: Need for Austerity

Two: the fact that Social Security is just not sustainable and will be going bankrupt.
And besides, should we really let the greedy seniors take money away from younger people?

Never ever have I ever heard any one of these people saying that the deficit exists because of the damn wars, the outsourcing of jobs, etc. It is always seniors, students etc that must take a hit, not the military.

My Congressman, one Mike Thompson, (Dem) goes around the County to let us know that Social Security comes from the General Fund. Often some activist (or two or even three or four,) will attempt to educate him, that he is wrong, but he has this clever little pie chart, so he won't back down.

And it is the same pie chart that Bill Maher uses as well.

Currently the Social Security Fund has well over a two trillion dollar surplus, and the same people letting us know we need austerity on account of the budget deficit that obviously exists because Granma's monthly Social Security check is paid by the Evil Web of Entitlement Programs, etc, never seem to be aware of this surplus.

But the politicians are all aware that Social Security, unless reformed, will go bankrupt sometime in 2033 or so, so we should just kill it off now. I mean, it is after all, "an entitlement program."

[madville]

58. Trust fund depletion is actually around 2026

And I say that because it is becoming more likely everyday that Congress will do nothing about SSDI before 2016. The DI trust fund is down to only 90 Billion and will be depleted in 2016.

This is important because is Congress does nothing SSDI will, by current law, automatically start drawing from the larger OASDI trust fund that has about 2.6 Trillion currently available. If that is allowed to happen all trust funds will be depleted around 2026 by current projections.

There are ways to prepare for that and to tweak a few things like raising the contribution cap but we are pretty much stuck with Congressional gridlock for awhile and 12 years goes by pretty quick.

[freshwest]

64. 'Top 5 Social Security Myths.' The last two paragraphs agree with you:

Rumors of Social Security's demise are greatly exaggerated. But some powerful people keep spreading lies about the program to scare people into accepting benefit cuts. Can you check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers?

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.1

Sources:

1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security" Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf

3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement"Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

4. "More on raising the retirement age" Ezra Klein, Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

5. "Social Security is sustainable" Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/social_security_is_sustainable/

6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010." Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240

7. "Trust Fund FAQs" Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

8. "To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/?id=22141-17547211-b.XrNrx&t=1

[truedelphi]

102. This deserves to be its own OP!

Most excellent information.

And I know whenever any statements get made, showing how the average worker is getting shafted, all the red herrings come out in full force.

If we could eat those red herrings, we would never again need to worry about the extinction of our ocean marine life!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

62. Rec #147

Enthusiastic rec!

[Romulox]

67. The reason is that we have spent every penny of SS. "Lent" it to the Federal gov't, to spend on war

That's reality. The so-called 4 Trillion "surplus" is an IOU from the Federal Government.

We're in MASSIVE trouble.

[Dragonfli]

78. it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds not IOUs see post #64 above /nt

[PoliticAverse]

104. Actually it's full of "Special Issues" not "Treasury Bonds".

See: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html

[Dragonfli]

108. They are still treasury bonds, no matter what nonsense Pete Peterson is spreading that you fell for

They are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The US has never failed to honor it's bond debts. Special issue or otherwise, you should actually read the link you posted, you will find it enlightening.

[PoliticAverse]

109. I am quite familiar with the link I posted (and additional information from the Social Security

administration and the Bureau of the Public Debt). This has nothing to do with 'Pete Peterson'
(why are you bringing him up?).

Also the US has 'failed to honor' its bond debt in bond debt a few times in its history.

[Dragonfli]

111. I brought it up because the IOU meme meant to pretend that the money was not invested

in US bonds was started and propagated by Pete's fine organizations (and parroted at thirdway.org most dutifully)

Please link to the US failing to honor it's bonds please, if they did that, our credit rating must be down to a B by now and I am rather concerned about this bit of new bad news.

[PoliticAverse]

112. For past US defaults, see...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023785780

[Dragonfli]

113. That was a major fuck up that cost the country 6 billion a year

because of $120 million and that was just on debt that it was late on (that it actually did pay although late).

According to that article, because of that error, more interest was applied to all 800 billion dollars which was the debt at the time, now imagine what would happen if it was merely late on paying 2.6 trillion dollars in debt and what interest rates would be forced on the entire debt the US owes now (a vastly larger number), imagine further, if it failed to pay that 2.6 trillion dollar debt at all.

It would destroy this country financially and I believe my imagined B rating to be way too optimistic cosidering the information you supplied. Do you really think, that they will not pay those bonds when you add up the cost of not doing so? It would be financial suicide for the country.

So in a way, you have proven my point.

Thank you for the link, I honestly did not know that we were ever even late in paying our bond debt, thank Goddess we never actually failed to pay our bonds at all, the repercussions would be more than devastating.

[truedelphi]

103. Great minds think alike! Even in the 1970's, various writers on

OpEd pages stated that all Baby Boomers would have for their retirement would be their boxes of 8 track music tapes.

During that same era, one political cartoonist had a cartoon where it showed Baby Boomers in their old age looking into the box labelled Social Security (in the shadow of the nation's Capital Building) and all that was inside was a big piece of paper on which was written "IOU!"

[The Wizard]

70. Seniors on SS

usually don't bribe legislators, defense contractors on the other hand..........

[Fantastic Anarchist]

73. What the fuck?

I didn't hear about this. I have a long ways to go before I'm 67 (and may not make it), but why are they doing this? Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit or debt?

Can someone explain why this is happening?

[ctsnowman]

77. K & R

[Dont call me Shirley]

81. Time for peace, cooperation, and non-violence to prevail.

CUT FUNDING FOR THE WAR MACHINE, CONGRESS, NOW!

[truedelphi]

95. May it be as you wish. But in fact, the war

Seems to be coming home to us here.

Thanks to DHS and its involvement with our police - in both equipping them and training them.

With the streets of Ferguson being the first target of the first attempt of an African American Kristelnacht.

[frazzled]

82. No, the reason is a bill passed back in 1983

You're a little late complaining about it. And isn't it a little weenie bit disingenuous to tie these raises in the full retirement age, which were enacted more than 30 years ago, to anything going on today?

Social Security's full-benefit retirement age is increasing gradually because of legislation passed by Congress in 1983. Traditionally, the full benefit age was 65, and early retirement benefits were first available at age 62, with a permanent reduction to 80 percent of the full benefit amount. Currently, the full benefit age is 66 for people born in 1943-1954, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

http://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/retirement-age

Here are the provisions of the 1983 Amendments:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

[truedelphi]

94. Jeez oh Jeez oh Jeez:

I have ben told all my damn life how important it is to make sure the Democrats are in power.

We had Democrats in power while Bill Clinton was in office, January 1993 to January 1995. Did any of them decide to really consider the needs of middle incomed Americans (to say nothing about the actual working class?) Did they decide to turn around this travesty regarding the two year Social Security delay around? And to restore us Baby Boomers to the original agreement we had with the government regarding Social Security?

We all know they didn't. Of course, if it had been a travesty that was important to them, such as getting the "Trade Agreement" known as NAFTA passed so their buddies in Big Business could easily makes tens of billions of dollars, while compelling tens of millions of newly impoverished Mexican and Central Americans to attempt coming into the USA to seek work, it would have been done, Presto! and Bob's your uncle.

We saw the same thing happen when the Democrats re-took the House and Senate in January of 2007. What did they go into the Congress and try and get done after this sweep of Congress and their newly won majority? Their very first big concern was helping Amazon and Time/Life get reduced rates at the US Post Office. And to help do that, they socked higher postal rates onto smaller publishing firms, like the one my family runs.

And again, no interest at all in the fact that the Social Security earnings are delayed "by choice" for most people, as most people who can somehow afford to wait it our want to avoid being clipped some 35% in taking an early retirement at 62.

[frazzled]

96. So, if I would say ooga booga

or "it's raining tarantulas," this would provide you occasion to blame Democrats. Did you contact your Congressman in 1993, ten years after the bill was passed, to urge him or her to change the law? Did you do it in 2003 or 2013? Ooga booga.

Look, I don't pretend to understand the very complex mathematical algorithms that project and manage the ever-changing needs of the Social Security system. It's been changed and readjusted hundreds of times since 1935 to account for various things. My soon-to-be 98-year-old father is still collecting Social Security, something he never imagined he'd be doing for so long (even though he waited till 70; and no he was far far from being "well-off": he worked his ass off for as long as he could, even taking a dangerous night job, in order to get the maximum benefit, since he had never earned much money. And on the good side, because he was born in the right slice of time, he's collecting more than others because of some glitchy law that was enacted at some point. Others should be pissed at him.)

But I do know enough to know that everyone in this thread, myself included, is blowing it out of their ass when they make assumptions about these changes and try to connect them to anything under the sun that pops into their pretty little heads.

My comment was simply to inform the OP that, no, all the current things he's railing about have nothing to do really at all with why the full-retirement age was phased in. Because it was written thirty years before the things he thinks are causing this year's delay (which you've known about for 30 years).

But carry on. I'm over 62 and in the middle of work right at the moment. I'm too busy to listen to all this.

[truedelphi]

105. YOUR very last sentence shows your lack of motivation to think about this.

You have a job. At the age of 62. Good. For you.

But tens of millions of people are being phased out of the job market. If you read enough posts here on DU, each week, you can probably catch some 5 or 6 people here on DU talking about being 55 to 60 years old, and very discouraged in terms of looking for work.

Why? Because employers do not want to pay for the hugely expensive insurance premiums that such older workers bring with them. (This was happening years before the ACA so I am not laying blame on that.)

Often when an older person is hired they are hired part time, so that again, the insurance premium situation does not take profit from the employer and translate that profit into insurance premiums.

So by the time a person is 62, they are so discouraged. They realize they have few options. They may already be trying to figure out if they should pay their rent, or buy their meds. Or pay their rent, but skimp on groceries and buy their meds.

Meanwhile, every day of the week, some financial expert is on TV telling people how important it is to wait to go for their Social Security benefits. As though us older people are just too damn lazy to work. (The people at Motley Fool had an article about this recently too - again, the onus was on us damn lazy oldsters.)

Yet the idea that the economic recovery has not been possible for many people is finally getting into the thick skulls of the Financial crowd. Here are two paragraphs of a speech recently offered to the public by Mr Fischer of the Federal Reserve:


But--and this is no small "but"--the global recovery has been disappointing. With few exceptions, growth in the advanced economies has underperformed expectations of growth as economies exited from recession. Year after year we have had to explain from mid-year on why the global growth rate has been lower than predicted as little as two quarters back. Indeed, research done by my colleagues at the Federal Reserve comparing previous cases of severe recessions suggests that, even conditional on the depth and duration of the Great Recession and its association with a banking and financial crisis, the recoveries in the advanced economies have been well below average.(footnote #3) In the emerging market economies, the initial recovery was more in line with historical experience, but recently the pace of growth has been disappointing in those economies as well. This slowing is broad based--with performance in Emerging Asia, importantly China, stepping down sharply from the post-crisis surge, to rates significantly below the average pace in the decade before the crisis. A similar stepdown has been seen recently for other regions including Latin America.

Another snip:

Job cuts at federal, state, and local governments have reduced payrolls by almost 3/4 of a million workers, resulting in a decline in total government civilian employment of 3-1/4 percent since its peak in early 2009.(footnote #7) The fiscal adjustments of the last few years have reduced the federal government deficit to an expected level of 3 percent of GDP in 2014 and fiscal drag over the next few years is likely to be relatively low.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. But..but..just look at how safe we are! Peace and freedom prevails around the world!

"America is the first country to have gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization." -  Oscar Wilde

[ashling]

89. I get where you are coming from re: defense and other obscene costs ,but

I must have missed something about soc. sec. - boomers (like me) having to wait til 66 or 67

I will be 62 next week and my social security is going to start in October

if I waited til 67 it would be more, but at least it is something

[truedelphi]

93. It's a matter of perspective.

Your Social Security monthly payments are going to be approximately some 35% less than if you waited until you turned 67.

I applaud your optimism. And your ability to navigate the system and get what you want now rather than later. Only you know if you are making the right choice. Whether it is or isn't the right thing to do is up to you. In my family, people live to be ninety, so my thinking about taking on the earlier settlement weighs heavily on me.

However, the fact remains that millions of Baby Boomers are being forced onto Social Security early, as although they are willing to work, few employers will hire them. If they are hired on, they are hired on as part time only. This is all a contrivance by employers to avoid having to pay the steep health insurance premiums of people over 55. (This was happening BEFORE the ACA took effect, so I am not attempting to slur the ACA in my reply to you. If anything or anyone, I am attempting to slur the greed of some Big Employers!)

[ashling]

106. Oh, I agree perfectly

I wish I could have waited, but I might not even be alive by the time I am 67.

[Autumn]

116. Amazing.