Obama; No Privatization of SS, but everything should be on the table.

[Alamom]

This statement is at the end of this article and of great interest to my spouse and me. Cutting benefits and raising the retirement age is not the safety net we have worked for and paid into 40+ & 20+ years (spouse is still working & paying @ 62)

When you're 40 or even 50, 67 or 70 may not seem to be too bad. But when you've worked 40 years and you may be looking at 10 more, that's a long time & then consider reduced benefits.

People are living longer and healthier as a whole, but after 55-60, health problems start to creep in....earlier for many people. Also, consider this, age discrimination in the job market.
They can raise the retirement age but they do not enforce any type of age discrimination policies. Companies do not want to hire someone over 50-55 no matter how healthy when they have 20-30 year old people standing in line for jobs.
We've going through this and it's no cake walk even with planning & saving for 30 years.


Opinions? & please state age.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070513obama,0,7674442.story


by Mike Dorning
Chicago Tribune (MCT)
14 May 2007



On the politically tricky dilemma of bolstering the Social Security system, Obama said “everything should be on the table,” including politically painful choices such as higher taxes, a reduction in benefits and an increase in the retirement age at which Americans become eligible to collect their Social Security pension.

But Obama said even a partial privatization of Social Security “is not something that I would consider.”

“Social Security is that safety net that can’t be frayed and we shouldn’t put at risk,” Obama said.






************************************************************************************************

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/IncRetAge.html

For persons born in 1938 or later, their Social Security benefit may be affected by a provision that raises the age at which full Social Security benefits are payable.
The age for collecting full Social Security retirement benefits will gradually increase from 65 to 67 over a 22-year period beginning in 2000 for those retiring at 62.
The earliest a person can start receiving reduced Social Security retirement benefits will remain age 62.
Increase in Age for Receiving Full Social Security Benefits

Year of Birth - Full Retirement Age

1937 or earlier 65

1938 - 65 and 2 months

1939 - 65 and 4 months

1940 - 65 and 6 months

1941 - 65 and 8 months

1942 - 65 and 10 months

1943 thru 1954 - 66 (This is our bracket. b. 44 & 52)

1955 - 66 and 2 months

1956 - 66 and 4 months

1957 - 66 and 6 months

1958 - 66 and 8 months

1959 - 66 and 10 months

1960 and later - 67



edgr

[rodeodance]

1. former members of congress get health insur and pensions for life

[aquart]

2. So do presidents...after four lousy years.

[terisan]

4. End defined pension plan for Congress- 401k instead. Give them medicaid for health insurance

If we do this it will improve situation for us.

[w13rd0]

3. I agree with him...

...and I am 35.

The system must be adjusted to accomodate changing circumstances. I'd like Social Security to still be around when my children are old enough to retire. Under the current regime, that's not something I feel very confident of...

[Alamom]

8. It's a " possible" next regime making the statement. eom

[Greyhound]

5. This is the kind of shit that keeps me from supporting him. He spreads all of the

BIG LIES and gives them legitimacy.

There is no SS crisis, looming or otherwise, this is just another lie manufactured by the financial industry to con the suckers out of their money. Any potential shortfall that might, maybe, someday decades in the unforeseeable future, occur can be easily compensated for by removing the cap on contributions.

Any politician that says anything about any "adjustments" or "reforms" to the SS system, is simply fishing, or paying, for Wall Street campaign contributions.

Edit: spelling

[Alamom]

9. Thank you for reading the OP and getting it.. I agree with you

completely....handled properly, there is no crisis. No need to raise retirement age or cut benefits.

[WePurrsevere]

10. Thank you, well said. This is what I keep saying as well & yet

sometimes I swear we're talking to a brick wall for all that it's sinking through the grey matter. x(

[Bitwit1234]

6. Any body who wants to privatize SS would never get my vote

I would never ever vote for them.....It would not effect me. Those receiving SS would probably stay the same. But the only reason republicans want this is so ALL that money would go to their buddies to steal like they have done everything else.

[terisan]

7. No Social Security Crisis; Medicare Problems made Worse By Bush

Remember Gore's Proposal for a Social Security Lock Box.

There has been government mingling of funds. Much of the fear talk around social security is fear-mongering. The adjustments needed are manageable. Financial community is just eager to get hands on investment money and hence the demand for privatization. Also government would be happy to not have to pay what they owe to the trust fund and hence could keep cutting taxes on richest Americans.

It is Medicare that has problems and Bush's Drug benefit plan has made the situation worse.

I think that there is and will be a right wing attempt to gouge retirees social security benefits through increased Medicare payments.

[Greyhound]

11. "Financial community is just eager to get hands on investment money"

this is the reason for all of the discussion, going back for well over a decade.

Wall Street knows full well that, due to wage stagnation and falling confidence, their Ponzie scheme is nearing collapse, and without another huge infusion of funds, à la the rise of the 410(k) that was brought about by the looting of the pension funds in the 80's, they will be caught short.

Almost every hard asset in the nation is leveraged beyond any hope of breaking even, and nobody want to be the one left holding the empty bag.

The trillions sitting there with no commissions being taken is just driving them to a state of panic. Pretending that all is well and fudging numbers will only take them so far.

I'm not old enough, but those of you that are, keep on to AARP and watch them like hawks, they have the power to stop the politiwhores from stealing your/our money. They've already shown signs of "compromising", do not let them do it.

[Colobo]

12. Hitjob...

[Alamom]

16. How so?

[loyalsister]

13. The third rail

I remember a west wing episode that referred to social security as the third rail.
I find that people look at and understand social security.

When I think of "safety net," I think of poverty protection. As in "otherwise on the street begging" poverty protection. I am confused that a fund that serves to protect poverty would also be construed as a savings account. I would like to see SS to be understood as insurance against poverty which a person may or may not need. Sort of like disaster insurance. You don't collect uless your retirement plan doesn't work out, etc.

We weren't ready for our population to age to the extent that it does. And certainly not for as many people to survive illness and injury.
We have working aged disabled people and disease survivors who are receiving SS benefits, as well. If you think age discrimination is something try the employment discrimination shuffle with a head injury or mental illness. These are the fruits of our medical technology. Yet we not only resent paying for it, but continue to brag about our health care system because we have such great acute care.
Acute care producing people who need chronic care while politicians on both sides accept funds from insurance lobbyists in the business to withhold care from those who need chronic care (elderly and aging, disabled, etc).

Something's gotta give.

[Odin2005]

14. Remove the FICA tax cap, problem solved.

SS is not THAT much of a problem, but the public thinks it is a major problem and telling the public it's not would be spun by the MSM as "Obama ignoring the SS problem."

[Greyhound]

15. K & R

:kick:

[dansolo]

17. Remove the FICA cap

FICA is maxed out at around $86000. Get rid of that limit, and not only will it largely solve the solvency "problem", it will also eliminate the regressivity of the tax.

Hey Obama, that option better be on the table.

[Ethelk2044]

18. I agree Hit Job

Third post about the samething. He has already stated his stand. Old news get something new.