Raising the Medicare age is an unique terrible policy idea. It doesn’t save the federal government much money and by forcing older people into the less cost effective private insurance, it increases overall health care spending. It increases spending for almost everyone including seniors, everyone buying individual insurance, and state Medicaid programs.

nice post jon, you left one out though;

it also dilutes the labor force which makes fewer jobs available and there will be downward wage pressure

Basically the only group of people who would really benefit from this change would be individuals in the health care industry who would see their revenues increase significantly as a result. People like the CEO’s of Aetna, Unitedhealth, Pfizer and Merck who all happen to be members of the Business Roundtable.

include in that mix employers who will be able to pay lower wages since jobs will be harder to find

What horrible ideas. Of course, none of the people making the decisions have ever done physical labor in their lives. They can’t even imagine what it would be like to be pouring concrete, driving a huge truck, or paving a road at 69.

Reads like an asset stripping plan.

Not content with stripping assets off us all throughout our lives, the plan is now to strip the remaining assets off (unemployable) elderly people with medical expenses, and then cast them aside to die in penury.

Nice.

Exactly! And to make sure that there is no money left for the survivors. Yet, another way to kill the middle class.

Like Alan Grayson said about the american death by spreadsheet health insurance companies (paraphrasing)…’if you can’t afford it, die quickly’.

And these bastards are going to make sure the vast majority of americans can’t afford it, health care, retirement, our homes…you name it, they want it.

Sounds to me like they can imagine it.

The unique needs of individuals in in physically demanding occupations should be accommodated

Right! And everyone gets a pony.

Once again I have to remind folks that the this is not just about physical labor. Many of us in sedentary occupations are being or will be pushed out of the labor force well before even the current retirement age. it’s only those in elitist sedentary occupations who will be able find cushy think-tank, corporate board or media gigs well into their sixties and seventies. The rest of us are regarded as dead weight by the time we hit 50.

With corporate after-tax profits soaring 171% under Obama, I’m sure these corporations will be expanding their retirement, pension and profit-sharing programs for their employees and retirees, to make up for the cuts they’re proposing to the public programs. Right?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/corporate-profits-soar-as-executives-attack-obama-policy.html

Absolutely “Looking Glass” in its idiocy.

America needs to lower the Social Security retirement age to 55 until the jobs crisis is resolved, and lower the Medicare retirement age by a decade every year until every American is eligible. If these morons are really working for the benefit of their companies’ stockholders, they will understand the advantage of removing the cost of health care from the corporate books.

Of course, they are not. They are simply hating the poor and the olds.

But asking them about lowering the ages of retirement in both programs will unmask them for what they are.

Like Alan Grayson said about the american death by spreadsheet health insurance companies (paraphrasing)…’if you can’t afford it, die quickly’.

There’s a “Catch 22″. If you do something to expedite your death they put you in jail.

Uh, well, ……you know what I mean.

Teddy, you are man waaaay ahead of your time.

Y’all ain’t the healthiest either. Apparently sitting at a desk for 8-12 hours has its inherant risks as well.

Quite frankly we ought to be talking about lowering retirement to 62 again and expanding Medicare to those 50 or younger.

Sadly, we are governed by idiots who wouldn’t know a “savvy person” from a hole in the ground. They listen to all the wrong people.

Do we have any good stats on the proportion of U.S. workers between ages 65-70? The proportion of people who continue working past age 67 but take SS (that will include me as of Feb 9th)?

I guess one question is: what kind of additional barrier to workforce entry would this pose for younger workers/applicants? Has anyone modeled that? i.e., is it “cheaper” in the aggregate to have older people retire?

I’d settle for back to 62 on retirement. However, there is no excuse for not expanding a program that enjoys popularity and lowers costs to those 50 or older. No excuse, of course, except for the profit making entities that HATE it and will stand in it’s way ad infinitum.

I average over 4000 miles per year on my bike (and know plenty of people my age and older who do even more) so I’m a bit offended by your specious generalization about the health of my age group. But, yes – cubicle sitting is not the greatest thing for your health.

I do agree with you though about lowering the retirement age and age of Medicaid eligibility.

Just what you’d expect from the “I’ve got mine so sc**w you,” crowd.

Yes, old guys who have cushy, high paying jobs until they drop dead in office making decisions for the rest of us.

What they are really saying its that you will HAVE TO work at least 3 more years. But the reality is that even then most people cant afford to retire.

The problem is that there is no employment for older people. Yes, some businesses exploit them – I mean offer employment – because they cant afford to make waves or make demands or complain. IMO many jobs that at one time would have been done by teen agers are now staffed with the AARP crowd.

If having to work in your Golden Years doesnt scare you it should. Being unemplyed/under employed in my 40s I can tell you straight up that even at this age its hard to even get a bullshit job. Like the 22 year old manager at the TMobile store is going to hire someone old enought to be every there’s dad.

I have also had a family member die partly due to the fact her health failed before she hit the magic age and others who seriously struggle if they lose employment post 50. We often talk about the cat food but IMO seniors often have it much better than those say 59 or 60.

It should also be super scary to us postboomers since most of us are unlikely to even know what a pension is.

The opposite would be true for business if the BLS is to be believed. Older workers are wiling and able(likely due to the fact that we pay social security) to work for lower pay.

http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2008/older_workers/

Their median pay is lower. And the BLS says that they comprised about 4.3 percent of the workforce in 2010.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_304.htm

If we look at 55 or lower we’d be looking at almost 1/5 of the labor force of 2010.

I think their main point here is to confuse several different social insurance programs.

Sort of like saying Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and 9/11 and terorism and Iraq over and over again in the same sentences.

Based on how Democrats have advocated social insurance over the past four years, I’m guessing this will actually be quite successful.

There’s a percentage of people who are happy to work until 70 or beyond, and that’s great, IF you can find and keep a job that long (I may be lucky enough, myself).

That said, agree with notion that Soc Sec & Medicare ages should be lowered, not raised, esp at this time.

Another thing is that the wealthy CEO/politician/lobbyist/bankster set, who can & do work into their 80s (think Warren Buffet) can do so MAINLY because they have a cadre of servants at home and at the office to step and fetch it for them. That’s putting it crudely, but they AlL have housekeepers, maids, cooks, gardeners, personal assistants, accountants, lawyers, secretaries, managers, clerks, etc, at their beck & call, not to mention masseuses, personal trainers, physical therapists, etc. They have tailors that come to them. Probably they have health care workers who come to them, as well.

They’re not breaking a sweat trying to do routine home, garden, car, clothing maintenance, etc, whilst also doing even their own data entry (much less anything else that’s taxing) at work. They are “ideas” people, who have loads of serfs to do their scut work.

So, yeah, for them it’s EASY-PEASY to work into their ’80s, even though they love love love to whiiiiiiine about how haaaaaaard they “work.”

ptoui!

My argument is that the health of people who spend large portions of time at a desk is not going to be significantly better than those doing manual labor. Sitting for long periods of time isn’t healthy either.

While you may go ride a bike the majority of this country goes home and rides their couch. It’s one of the reasons we have an obesity problem.

Why would anyone want to give up 10 years of peak earning years and retire on a punny SS check?

Oh c’mon, Alan, I know you’re smarter than that.

first, I agree if you are arguing ss should write much higher checks, well done if that’s what you meant;

to answer your question, I would gladly, and most people in my shoes;

I have investment income that does not cut it on it’s own but would definately make it with ss

plenty of folks alan

That’s too fucking rational. Why would we ever do something so silly?

Yeah, the real reform to make to Social Security isn’t the old age insurance part that works fantastically well, it’s the unemployment insurance part that is a ridiculous mess of hodge-podge laws and coverage.

If we had universal unemployment insurance in this country, that would solve a lot of the other problems.

Some of us aren’t expecting to last into our 80s and would be happy with a stipend to pay the bills and spend time with what is important to us.

For most it is not an option, when the man appears with a pink slip in his hand.

Um, that describes people of all ages, not just those 55-61.

He may not realize that some of the workforce is engaged in what is just a slight margin better than indentured servitude. They don’t even have the luxury of getting sick without someone chastising them for it.

The older you get the more likely you are to have health problems as a result of it though.

That’s one of the reasons most of us oppose a chained CPI.

I’d suspect that they think people will decide to have more children to help them out in old age, but I doubt they’re (this Business Roundtable) thinking about the families of working people at all. They just worry about the short-term bottom line, their own pockets.

Besides, having children support you in old age depends on them not only living and being healthy themselves when you reach old age, but that they have the means to support you. Additionally, the costs for your children raising any of their children will be higher.

Well, there’s always “you” to support “you”,but from the comments I see even that has run into a bit of a snag. Because nothing is worth doing if you don’t do it by 35, right? We’ve exalted youth to a point where people past 50 in many fields are no longer valued and where people past a certain age are looked at sideways if they decide to change fields and start “fresh”. No surprise since we’re in the age where we’re still under the influence of a generation that popularized the phrase “Hope I die young before I get old”.

You’re still making a specious generalization about the health of a large group of people. Yes, there is an obesity problem but it’s not limited to cubicle workers or older workers and it’s more due to poor food choices and bad eating habits than having a sedentary occupation.

The far more compelling reason to lower the retirement age is the age discrimination practiced against older workers in most, if not all, all occupations

The thing is these guys, Ds and Rs, are convinced the deficits we have are not sustainable and no one will agree to the higher taxes to pay for improved social benefits. So the result will be ever increasing debt without bounds such that the interest on it will cause inflation. There is, in fact, an economic theory that can demonstrate this.

It is bullshit if we either stop issuing bonds or control the interest we pay on it. But none of them understand that, not the president, not the Rs and not the Ds. In fact it is an article of faith we often call the neo liberal economics. So it follows that the safety net must be reduced and that includes SS. I’m not gonna try to explain that last one.

The number of people choosing to have children has actually been declining. They’re an expense people feel they can’t afford.

One problem is SS benefits are calculated on 35 years of income. Taking the best 10 years out of the calculation could cut the benefit in half.

That is not what studies are indicating.

http://www.thereibrain.com/sedentary-work-increases-health-risks-for-employees/2536/

I can give you more if you like but there is a reason that they started the “Let’s move” campaign and added a physical activity component to the pyramid.

And again, the older you are the more likely you are to suffer the effects of a disease and the less of a reserve you have to bounce back from the complications of it.

Why would we WANT to cut the benefit in half? As it stands right now it’s all that is stand between poverty and the elderly for 1 in 5 of those collecting it.

I have a friend who is 82 and really struggling. It’s a long story, but this person has worked all her life. One major job was with Montgomery Ward, which went bankrupt some years ago, and she lost all of the pension she had contributed to.

She continues to work part-time at 82. Why how nice, you say? Well let me tell you, it’s not a pretty sight. I am supportive of and concerned about my friend. A component of the work involves some heavy lifting, which is, factually, ruining her health (and causing her to have high med bills). It’s a viscious cycle of earning “just enough” to pay the next med bill.

Her kids and grandkids do what they can to assist her financially, but none of them are earning big enough salaries to support my friend, AND themselves, PLUS try to save for their own retirement.

So having kids, while it can be helpful, is not always an answer.

My friend got screwed over by the “system,” and now she’s struggling to survive. IF Soc Sec ends up being cut further (and don’t kid yourself that it won’t affect the older seniors; it will), she will struggle to eat and pay her bills.

Great country we got here.

Not sure what you are talking about with widespread age discrimination (as opposed to particular cases that don’t speak broadly).

First, older workers are a protected class in various employee relationships, so there is legal recourse unavailable to younger workers.

Second, older workers have much higher employment rates than younger workers.

Also, cwaltz: what does health have to do with lowering OASI ages? I thought you were talking about retirement (at least, that’s what my comment was about) – you said:

a stipend to pay the bills and spend time with what is important to us.

That’s pretty much the definition of retirement.

This is why the Democratic leaders have done such a fine job muddying the waters on social insurance. OASI isn’t designed to solve health or retirement issues; it’s a program to alleviate poverty among the elderly. Lowering ages into people’s 50′s may or may not be good policy, but it really has nothing to do with elderly poverty.

The way to deal with people who can’t find work is a universal unemployment insurance system, and the way to deal with people who can’t work is a simpler disability insurance system.

Tying those issues to old age insurance or hospital insurance is precisely the muddying that DC Dems have enabled.

We need more of a conversation about the way we view age and work, not just about Social Security and Medicare outside of that context.

It’s not a matter of want, it’s a matter of fact. Most people reach their peak earining ability in their mid 50′s. Dropping out of the work force means not getting those high income years factored into their benefit.

That’s why I asked, why would anyone want that?

It doesn’t have to be that way. But there is a whole economic meme out there that to some extent we all buy into. I do mean all of us. It is a pity that OWS never went anywhere.

Seems to me we need to get this economy back on track. That means jobs, jobs and more jobs.

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. If we were to lower the benefit to 55(I still say 60-62 is a fairly good number) then when they factor your benefits for Social Security they’d be a lot lower because you’d be missing those 10 “peak” years.

You’re saying that essentially by suggesting we lower the age we’d be lowering the benefits which are already meager. Is that what you’re getting at?

Are you for fucking real?

The so-called “protections” and “legal recourse” you speak of are worthless and you would know so if you had ever spoken to a lawyer about filing a claim. Unless the employer is dumb enough to specifically tell you that you’re being fired for being too old out loud in front of witnesses (who are willing to testify against the employer and thus put their own jobs in jeopardy) it’s almost impossible to prove age discrimination even when you have obviously been treated differently than your younger peers. And if I’m not mistaken the Supreme Court raised the standard of proof required to prove an age discrimination claim even to an even higher level a few years back.

If you are part of an effective union or are there is some kind of publically administered exam required for your job then you may be able to meet the standards of proof required if you are part of a large group that has suffered a differential rate of layoffs or lack of hiring. But as an individual in most jobs – forget it. And I am speaking from experience so you can stuff your uninformed opinions up your ass.

And by the way, the fact that older workers may have a higher rate of employment (which I, frankly, find to be a dubious claim – I’d really need to see the data on that one) doesn’t mean shit in terms of whether age discrimination exists or not. In our current environment it most likely only means that the employment rate for younger workers is so bad that event he shitty deal corporate America gives to older workers looks good by comparison. And it says nothing about the quality of jobs that older workers may be in or forced to take when they are dumped from their well-paying careers.

Age discrimination is pervasive in the US and anyone over 50 (or maybe even younger in some fields) knows it.

So that’s why 40-55ish people have gotten laid off in droves…and good luck getting hired….health care costs, doncha know.

Health has everything to do with what we are talking about. The reason the conversation is coming up is because the average person is living longer than they did when Social Security was conceived. That means people are collecting benefits for longer.

Medicare’s age of eligibility should be moved to age 70.

A feint to make 67 look acceptable?

Most people reach their peak earining ability in their mid 50′s. Dropping out of the work force means not getting those high income years factored into their benefit.

That’s not the issue. No one would be dumb enough to quit a well-paying job that was necessary for their economic security unless they got a major inheritance or won the lottery. The question is one of eligibility – not a mandatory retirement age (you do understand the difference don’t you?).

The problem is people who have been forced out of their jobs and can’t get new ones. It’s been documented that workers in older age groups experience much longer periods of unemployment when they lose their jobs and a not insignificant number are finding that they may never work again. Those people should be eligible for Social Security and Medicare even though they haven’t reached some “magic age” determined by rich, elitist pricks who will never have to worry about such problems.

You are not debating a serious commenter.

Right. Would you rather have your retirement benefit calculated on your average salary from age 20 to 55, or your average salary from 30 to 65. Most people don’t make a lot in their 20’s so it would be best to push those years out of the equation.

It’s by far the most ignorant of all the recommendations. Medicare actually holds down costs. It’s a proven method that actually controls costs for the health care sector(costs that they are bitching and whining NEED to be controlled.) We should be expanding the program, not making it

Boy are you uniformed. People are not living that much longer past the original SS retirement age than they did in the past. The much greater increase in life expectancy since the inception of SS is from the elimination of early childhood deaths due to preventable illnesses. Furthermore, the lions share of the increases in life expectancy past the original SS retirement age has been experienced by the well off.

Possibly. Another reason why we should be demanding the age be lowered to zero, so we can then compromise at gradually lowering the age to zero.

The best part about Medicare is somebody else pays 3/4 of the bill.

I think he has a valid point though.

If we were to lower the age to 55 then we’d likely have to have a drop in benefit entitlement AND we’d still have the problem that the benefits would need to be spread over a longer period of time to cover the increase in lifespan.

I still think that you have the right idea though and that retirement needs to be lowered, not highered.

I’d really like to see numbers on how many of the 55 to 65 set are in the workforce for health benefits because anecdotally I’ve seen quite a few people say they stayed at their jobs because of the health care benefits.

“punny” — were you making a joke??

What a bunch of crap.

I know…I was suggesting there could be minds at work that want to change that through increasing insecurity people may have about supporting themselves in old age.

For Part A, the primary source of financing is the payroll tax on covered earnings. Employers and employees each pay 1.45 percent of wages, while self-employed workers pay 2.9 percent of their net income.

For Parts B and D, transfers from the general fund of the Treasury represent the largest source of income and currently cover about 76 percent of program costs. Also, beneficiaries pay monthly premiums for Parts B and D that finance a portion (24%) of the total cost.

Really? I can provide you with a table.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

You’re looking at an increase of over a decade based on numbers from the CDC in 1940 and 2010.

Mind you the numbers for 2012 went down a little but it is still over a decade.

“Her kids and grandkids do what they can to assist her financially, but none of them are earning big enough salaries to support my friend, AND themselves, PLUS try to save for their own retirement.

So having kids, while it can be helpful, is not always an answer.”

Not an uncommon problem. And having more kids is not only “not always” the answer, it’s not even “the” answer when it means generation after generation being on the same hamster wheel.

Getting people to think beyond their generation and even their immediate “tribe” is what’s needed. But that’s difficult to do when the fruits of those efforts may not be realized in one’s lifetime.

And they pay 3/4 of your bill when you need it paid.

Do you have a point?

Medicare, thus far, has been the only option that has controlled costs which is EXACTLY what the powers that be say needs to happen to health care.

You bring up an excellent point about spreading benefits out over a longer period of time.

The best part about Medicare is that we all make sure that all of us have medical care when we get old.

Nowadays you’ve got kids until they’re 25. Most of them don’t have the earning potential to create a household until they are older unless they go into the military(who pays for their housing, utilities and health care.)

I guess my point is that most people think it’s self-sustaining, as SFExPat has pointed out.

you are not adding to your equation the amount of money you have recieced from ss over those ten years, add that ten years the ss income and you make up most of the dif you would have been paid by working that much longer

No, but part of the problem is that instead of taking the opportunity to expand a proven system to a set of people who are younger they’ve decided to make it smaller and go with a system that has time and time again put profit before people.

Yeah, let’s trust that company that threw people with breast cancer off it’s rolls with the excuse they had acne to help us lower the costs (*bangs head on desk at the stupidity and already is cueing for the who could have imagined chorus*)

Interesting point. Add to that the fact that you wouldn’t have to pay 6.2% payroll tax if you’re retired and you’re practically making money.

Sounds like my wife buying shoes on sale.

“Most people reach their peak earining ability in their mid 50′s.”

Why do you believe that?

your “analogy” is what gives analogies a bad name, it’s not even close

(assuming your wife doesn’t actually need shoes) your wife buying those shoes on sale leaves you with more work and keeping less income for no good reason accept that she has another pair of shoes

me retiring early leaves me with less work and about the same income over all

in addition, my family usually passes away at 69, the earlier I retire the more I get out of retirement

like I said, I have investment income that doesn’t get there, if I could take early retirement ss I would jump at it

I certainly was more productive in my 30′s then I am now in my 50′s

21stcentury January 17th, 2013 at 2:10 pm 73
In response to alan1tx @ 43 (show text)
“Most people reach their peak earining ability in their mid 50′s.”

Why do you believe that?

And would your statement be more accurate if it read: The ability of companies, of a certain mindset, to earn more in profit from a worker decreases after they reach their mid-50s?

Collection of money/wealth at the top is making less money availiable for the middle and bottom so the better solution is cap incomes and earning at $1 billion dollars. All the extra goes to ss and medicare for all. Easy, peasy

Yes, this.

You were “more productive”, but were you better at what you did? (Assuming you’re not a professional boxer or

I like to write songs. When I was in my 20s, I wrote tons of them. Very productive.
I wrote fewer as time went on, but they are 100 times better.

Your productivity has to do with the way you take care of yourself and the way the company you work for considers your health.

I see a lot of recognition about the demands of the more physical labor over time, but now there is more information about the health effects of less physical labor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19910888/

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont-sit/

So, it goes back to the way we think about work and age. Right now, it’s pretty much neglect your body ragged, let “the man” (hey, I couldn’t resist)toss you aside when he’s done, and blame it all on age.

The US Department of Labor says so.
Median weekly earnings

16 to 24 years $ 437.00
25 to 34 years $ 689.00
35 to 44 years $ 843.00
45 to 54 years $ 871.00
55 to 64 years $ 887.00
65 years and over $ 761.00

Sorry, just a little joke to keep it light.

It’s none of their GD business! Who the hell cares about them anyway? It’s our American life, not their international greed and profit. They need to mind their own stores and do an honest days work for their bottom lines..

I’m not surprise by what the Business Roundtable wants, conservatives, especially those conservatives who get rich sucking the government teat, have always wanted to destroy the New Deal and Great Society. It’s just competition for government bucks and despite the huge amounts they already get, they want it all.

The real question is what does Obama want? Because he gets what he wants, and is a master at using the right as cover to get it.

But many people’s life trajectories don’t follow a set path of continuously upward or downward.

That’s median wages of the population as a whole…it says nothing about people’s earning potential. And it’s a stat based on a median not an average and I bet it includes CEO salaries.

now lets see Alan stand up and fight for these programs as I am sure Obama will be in favor of these changes or he will try and use these ideas in some fashion. So Mr Greyoen will you stand up against the President and his money machine?

But beyond that….

BLS is showing a $44 dollar a week increase between the years of 35 to 55.

Don’t you think that’s sad?

I am 60 and work at a desk.. in the past 2 years I have known about 10 people in my age group die of heart attacks abd cancer..they were all desk job types. I don’t know anyone my age gruop including me that does not have some sort of on going health problem.

“So that’s why 40-55ish people have gotten laid off in droves…and good luck getting hired….health care costs, doncha know.”

Health care costs may be a bigger concern for smaller companies than major corporations.
With the big boys, it’s about dumping salary.

Three people in their mid to late 40s got laid off from a big corp. The eldest of the three was rehired in the same position in a different location for less money (and he’d had leaves of absences due to an ailment). Another with an even bigger health issues and more extended leaves of absences got rehired in a different department for less money.
The other one made the most money of the three and has not been rehired.

Reply
21stcentury January 17th, 2013 at 3:33 pm 88
In response to SharonMI @ 48 (show text)
“So that’s why 40-55ish people have gotten laid off in droves…and good luck getting hired….health care costs, doncha know.”

Health care costs may be a bigger concern for smaller companies than major corporations.
With the big boys, it’s about dumping salary.

Three people in their mid to late 40s got laid off from a big corp. The eldest of the three was rehired in the same position in a different location for less money (and he’d had leaves of absences due to an ailment). Another with an even bigger health issues and more extended leaves of absences got rehired in a different department for less money.
The other one made the most money of the three and has not been rehired.

———–
And the one not rehired has no chronic illnesses, no costly treatments and had an impeccable attendance record.

Why would the healthy employee be less valuable to the big corp?

The pension plan. The healthy employee is more likely to live longer and collect more in pension.

Why would anyone want to give up 10 years of peak earning years and retire on a punny SS check?

If this is so true Alan, what’s the problem with lowering the age then?? If you’re right, no one will apply anyway until they’re much older, so it shouldn’t be a problem lowering the age. So you’ll support lowering the age right, since it won’t cost anything and everyone will wait to apply until after their peak earning years. After all, no one is FORCED to apply for Social Security.

It’s not an accurate statement either.

I found this interesting and tried to post it before I lost internet.

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Incomes-by-Age-Brackets.php

Apparently “peak” is 45-54. Although I daresay any Social Security recipient is making $60,000 which is the 55-65. You practically fall off a cliff when you work past 65 though. They only make around half of that.

What pension plan? It’s mainly been replaced in the workplace by 401Ks and “matching contributions”. They don’t contribute to those after you’ve left their employ either.

A very smart overview on this was presented by Bob in a comment for Commondreams on.. if I may share it:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/16-0

The problem for them is that SS and Medicare have until recently been “cash positive” programs, i.e., took in more each month than they paid out, leaving extra cash to send to the Treasury in exchange for Special Issue Treasury Securities.

Treasury borrowing this money–like all money it borrows, whether from Wall Street, China or Saudi Arabia–supports low taxes. Particularly for the rich, of course.

Now that monthly payroll deductions don’t cover “outlays,” the Treasury is forced to fully redeem some of the debt held by the SSTF and Medicare. No big deal, the total gap for SS was about $50 Billion last year. No big deal unless you’re an entitled psychopathic thief who doesn’t want to pay this relatively small portion of the federal debt, that is.

Of that $16T in precious federal debt that they claim is so desperately important for us to pay back, nearly $5T is owed to government agencies like the SSTF.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pub…

Fix The Debt’s goal is to eliminate repayment of the debt owed to SS and Medicare by cutting benefits to a level where payroll deductions will always cover current “outlays.”

What people are really saying here–what their analysis is really founded on–is that the debt to the SSTF, Medicare, etc. should effectively be defaulted on.

Otherwise we’d have to either cut spending (defense an obvious
candidate) or increase taxes (nobody with money, who doesn’t need SS, is interested in this.) Or roll over the debt into regular Treasuries like we do for every other debt that the govt defers payment on.

All the bullshit about Social Security being a ponzi backed by nothing but IOU’s, specious claims that the money has been spent, etc., is just that. Bullshit.

This “reform” is an attempted raping of what Wall Street refers to as the “muppets”–the little people–a gang rape that even the oligarchs’ toadies can participate in . . . while feeling virtuous in doing it.

Can it really be surprising that this is so popular among people in the financial industry?

Here’s a twist on their con that would embrace reality in a way they should be able to support: Maintain SS and Medicare benefits at current or better levels because this will RETIRE SOME OF THAT INTOLERABLE FEDERAL DEBT. Every dollar in earned benefit “outlays” that they point to as “costing us” is actually PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.

LET US INDEED PAY DOWN THE DEBT by responsibly meeting our obligation to repay money owed to the earned benefit trust funds.

If Wall Street con men don’t want to pay taxes to do it, then let them cut their war machine.

Let them be real honorable and responsible adults for a change, rather than psychopathic swindlers and racketeers pretending to save us with yet another deal we can’t refuse.

The “Fix” is not yet in . . . let’s PAY The Debt.

Yep. At the end of the day I think that white collar workers may even be more at risk despite the fact that their jobs are less “hard” on the body.

I think the “business leaders” are safe because these are the people making 6-7 figures a year and they spend an inordinate amount of time schmoozing rather than sitting at a desk. The other white collar workers making five figures(even high five) an working long hours to justify those figures may be less lucky.

Yes. I made a factural statement, you asked me why I believed it and I provided stats.

It’s true that many life trajectories don’t follow a set path. But my statement is still true.

Stats don’t make me sad – usually.

You made a leap that I didn’t.

My question was why would anyone do this – it would be against their self interest.

You seem to think no one would do that. Then why even propose such a thing? The fact that someone proposed it indicates that there would be rubes not thinking it through that would go for it.

The reason we have SS is because some people couldn’t prepare for old age on thier own (not because they were bad, but maybe they didn’t make enough to save), so the government stepped in.

Maybe those same people would decide to take $600 per month at age 55 instead of $1200 per month at age 65. Maybe it would work out for them? But SS pays about 15% to 25% of average lifetime wages, I would think working for a few more years would be better for people than retireing at 55.

Now having said all that, for those who said some people are forced to retire at 55 because they lose their job or something, well ok.

…X 2

… X 2 …this would be a good begin point … a needed begin point

so the corporate shitheads push to raise the retirement age while they purge older workers from their payrolls in favor of young bloods. That is just effin’ sick.

Excellent comment…this goes/gets to the middle biglake…good thinking that needs to be spotlighted.

Too bad POTUS Obama is in on the con to hollow out SS to keep 1% in accustomed looting/ pillaging.

B.H.Obama looks to be hoping to climb into W.J. Clinton’s Post WH-POTUS Posh and Plush Glide.

Yep, the plan seems clear enough, kill us off before we can access any of our earned and pre-paid benefits…
Let the people rise up and say enough!

Census Bureau data says different.

And the truth is that with the job market being what it is there is a very real chance that many would choose “retirement.”

I also think it’s interesting because some people have suggested older workers have faced discrimination well numbers from the BLS suggest that older workers have fared better than younger workers.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t03.htm

My source.

I don’t understand how ~8% men and ~8% women unemployed adds up to the rest of the numbers unless there’s an uncounted “other” group.

lol

Thanks for playing. Let me know if you want to actually respond.

On the off chance you’re not totally trolling, try starting with these links. I can’t wait for an explanation of how these numbers are rigged by the all powerful special interests of young people to make things look worse than they are.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scf_2010.htm

December BLS U-3 unemployment rate for:

16-19 year olds – 23.5%
20-24 year olds – 13.7%
25-54 year olds – 6.7%
55+ year olds – 5.9%

2010 Fed median net worth by age of head of household:

<35 – $9,300
35-44 – $42,100
45-54 – $117,900
55-64 – $179,400
65-74 – $206,700
75+ – $216,800

P.S., meant to include this link as well.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.

There appears to be a discrepancy between the census and BLS data.

Speaking as one affected by this, we don’t want to stop working in our 50s or early 60s, but many of us don’t have a choice. I know for a fact about the most recent scam at least one multi-national corporation uses to rid themselves of the “protected class” another poster referred to. They lay off an entire department, everyone, make some minor changes to job descriptions, and then those same people get to re-apply for the newly described jobs. Amazingly, none of the employees over 50 are hired back. They started doing this to protect themselves from the legal recourse referred to by a previous poster. I’m extremely lucky to have had “temporary” work for the last 3 years with this corporation–at my age, I looked for a full-time job for over a year without success. My skills are good enough for me to have remained in a temporary job for 3+ years with 5% increase in hourly wage, but apparently not good enough for anyone to offer me full-time employment with benefits. It’s very difficult to escape age discrimination.