Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Kerry on GOP Proposal to Raise Retirement Age

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:20 PM
Original message
John Kerry on GOP Proposal to Raise Retirement Age
John Kerry is keeping the pressure on all bad ideas and proposals from the GOP …

Below is a statement by Senator John Kerry on reports that Senate Finance Committee Republicans plan to ram through a proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age to 69.

"It's hard to believe that as pensions disappear around the country for men and women who have worked a lifetime, anyone would consider raising the retirement age for Social Security. Social Security is the one bedrock promise a worker can count on in an age when pensions are going bust. Now not only does President Bush want to risk Social Security in the stock market, Republicans in Congress are considering forcing Americans to work until they're 69 before they can begin receiving a Social Security check earned over a lifetime. It's time to build real retirement security, not take it away."

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1086
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's a trial balloon
or test balloon. Sometimes they send this shit out to get public feedback. So when the polls come back negative and I believe they will, the GOP will do some quick back peddling. They're pushing the edge of the envelop with some of the stuff they're doing and I think the public is starting to see it. Question is, Will they wake up before 2006?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is there an actuarial reason the retirement age is 65-67?
This is one area where I tend to differ from other Democrats -- I don't necessarily think the current retirement age is untouchable (for far-off retirees, anyway -- I woulnd't spring a major adjustment on my late-50s parents.)

It's true people are living longer than they did when Social Security was started, are healthier later into life, and are collecting benefits over a longer period of time. So, should we raise the retirement age? (Perhaps with some sort of break for workers who are no longer able to perform physically demanding jobs, as there is a lot of difference between working construction and sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day.) I'd like to see what occupational physicians and doctors have have to say.

For that matter -- why was 65 chosen in the first place? Science? Conventional wisdom? Tradition?

I'd like to see the science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I am an actuary - IMHO the only reason for 65 was that it was the best we
could afford. And other countries were using that age.

Reagan increased the retirement age to age 67, fully phased in on 1/1/2027. A 1943 birth retires at age 66 in 2009 with full benefits.

Based on the increased life span for those attaining age 62 (the first age at which you can get retirement benefts - of course those are not "full" retirement benefits, but they are at least a reduced amount), raising the retirement age to 68 for 2039 makes a lot of sense. Indeed speeding up the transition to 67 so that it is completed by 2021, so that the next 12 years could do a transition to 68, makes even more sense.

Bur it "makes sense" only in terms of the tax burden of one generation on the next. Hard labor jobs still wear you out more quickly that "average" - and in general that is before age 68 - indeed it is before age 65.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Wasn't the age lifted under REAGAN, if I recall...
So sick of Conservative Republicans. They're not conservative by any means. I believe they radically detest America's freedoms, obviously.

Also tired of Dem's being referred to as "Liberals," all the time - like it's a dirty word to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phillysuse Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. The retirement age of 65 comes from 1870, Bismarck in Germany
The retirement age of 65 comes right from the pension plan offered
by Bismarck to the military in 1870. This was done by Bismarck
to try to co-opt the burgeoning labor movement in Germany in that
era. A survey was commissioned which showed the 99% of the soldiers
were dead at the age of 65. Therefore 65 was chosen as the
optimal age for a pension - it would sound good and coopt people
from turning to socialism- but since most of the people did not
live that long and hence it would not cost money.
The age limit of 65 was taken by Roosevelt from the German pension
plan and transferred directly to his program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Cripes - there are not a lot of good jobs for men and women in their 60s.
Older workers are layoff targets (especially in non-unionized industries) and it simply is not easy for any except the very skilled to get hired in their 50's and 60's.

Oh and screw that anyhow. We should be thinking about how to build a society where we are LOWERING the retirement age and REDUCING the work week and INCREASING vacations. How about we just reject the whole framework in which this debate is contained?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. No kidding! it's tough out there! N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sorry, John, but the lock box has already been offloaded into the coffers
of the most affluent so something dire like this could be perpetrated: the financial rape of the masses has already commenced in earnest and tens of millions who will be grievously harmed were among those who clamored "four more years, four more years." Be careful what you ask for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. I wonder if we can sue these bastards in office over this?
My dh and I have jointly paid into SS for 50 years. We have approx. 19 years to go before DH retires. Seems to me that they are breaking their contract for what they promised the workers of this country in the first place in regards to SS. :grr:

Any lawyers out there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. Will a Democrat come out in public and say it??
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 04:55 PM by bvar22

George Bush* and the Republicans
STOLE YOUR RETIREMENT MONEY
and
gave it to their RICH friends!


NOW, Bush* wants you to WORK
for 4 MORE YEARS
so his MILLIONAIRE friends
can keep YOUR retirement money!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. LOL!
:bounce:

Love this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Apparently not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTwentyoNine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. Fine,raise the age,then raise the SS pay-in cut-off to 10 MILLION...
That'll shut those fuckers up in a second when all their rich CEO bud's get SS pulled out of their pay for 100% of their salary.

Welcome to the real World ass-wipes,I pay into SS on EVERY dime I make,you should too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC