General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Stop it, stop saying Social Security needs reform, you are a Democrat, right? [View all]graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 05:41 AM - Edit history (1)
20 and 30 year olds NOT IN MILITARY SERVICE have not sacrificed for their country like all age groups prior to 1975. There could be a national service draft (not military unless those that want to want that).
Is it fair to say that 20 and 30 year olds (and those younger) should think the #s should all stay the same 30 to 40 to 50 years from now?
If everyone 45 or 50 and older could be grandfathered in (so that those people don't have a personal stake in wanting nothing cut from anything) changing a rate on those younger, so????
Who promised them a rose garden for 50 years?
Rates were different 50 years ago, why should the same rates stay in place 50 years later,especially as everyone is living longer anyhow.
And should health care costs drop drastically, the money needed for retirement will be so many times less than is needed now.
I don't think FDR or LBJ envisioned SS being the sole source of income available when in retirement. I think both envisioned people saving on their own too.
I think the intent they had is not saying all kids today should get the same #s later on.
Grandfather in at a certain age, and I see no reason that kids should sacrifice for the good of the country.
After all, didn't all those of a certain age sacrifice back when they were kids?
(and especially those born before 1960 all sacrificed and gave for the country.)
Again, this is about the kids and 50 years in the future. They could grandfather in those older.