Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Santorum: ‘People are living too long’

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 » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:10 PM
Original message
Santorum: ‘People are living too long’
Santorum: ‘People are living too long’

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/santorum-people-are-living-too-long/

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told supporters in Lancaster, South Carolina Tuesday that the Social Security retirement age had to be increased because “people are living too long.”

“Does anybody in this room believe that somebody that 62 years old is too old to work in America today?” Santorum asked. “Social Security was established for people who were too old to work and therefore they needed the support of the federal government.”

“Now back in 1936 we probably did and that made sense. Why? Because life expectancy in 1936 was 61. It’s now 80… So you have a situation where things have changed, and for our young people it will even be longer. We keep gaining about a month every few years, we gain in life expectancy. And so the idea that we’re going to keep the Social Security program locked in on a 1937 actuarial chart makes no sense at all.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. sums up the republican philosophy well n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. He sure as hell is living too long. Why is he still breathing? nt
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 04:12 PM by valerief
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. the good die young.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
21.  "... but pricks live forever!" - Lewis Black
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Another frothily stupid commentary from Dirty Santorum.

1. santorum 9077 up, 500 down

The sometimes frothy, usually slimy, amalgam of lubricant, stray fecal matter, and ejaculate that leaks out of the receiving partner's anus after a session of anal intercourse. Named, by popular demand and usage, after legislator Rick Santorum because of his homophobic political statements.

"That move was about as slick as santorum!"


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. My father died at 60..
My brother died at 58.

My father's brothers died at 43, 50, 58, 58, and 67. (my uncles)

I feel like I am on borrowed time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. My father was 64. White-collar job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. The love of my life died last year, he was 54. My cousin who was like a sister to me
died in May she was also 54. I don't need that ass talking about people living too long! :mad: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here come the Republican DEATH panels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. My exact thought! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cutlassmama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. "people" = the non-wealthy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. Tell you what, Rick
You go out with your average unemployed 62-year-old and find out just how many companies are beating down his or her door to offer that person a job. If you're still of the same stupid opinion after that, then we'll know for a fact just how stone-brained and heartless you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. +1
:applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Is somebody that is 62 years old too old to work in America today?
A question best put to employers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HelenWheels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. It depends what type of work you do
Jobs that are physically intense, truck drivers, sanitation workers, even many kinds of nursing, have a hard time getting past 62. I'm retired from nursing when I was 62 and I had a pretty physical job. However, if you have a sedentary job like Senators or member of Congress you could work until you are 100. Those legislators have it pretty cushy with every one driving them around and waiting on them like they are royalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Revenues aren't growing in a lot of businesses and cost cutting is the rage
This has been happening for a while; well before the meltdown in my industry at least (publishing).

Perhaps you can still get project work when you're older, but full salary with benefits will be ever harder to come by in many professions, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newest Reality Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. The flaw is obvious!
We are supposed to believe that longevity correlates with ability. Just because you live longer does not mean you are able to work, (or even should have to) after a entering an advanced age category. That is a variable.

Plus, I don't think being ill or decrepit is the sole reason for retirement, anyway. The ethic I was aware of is that, after all the years you put into your ceaseless, often thankless, not necessarily well-compensated efforts, you deserve to retire and enjoy what time you have left. That is especially so if you are not wealthy or in upper-income brackets.

I think that is beneficial and retirees will spend what they receive into the economy, as well, (and I am not implying that the benefits that SS gives are a great retirement package for many). Another factor that counters the mean-spirited Santorum is that it makes sense to allow a generation the option to retire and open positions for those behind them. Well, that used to make sense, anyway.

What he really means, to me, is how do we make sure the people who payed-into this program don't get much or anything back? Just like an insurance company, he seems to want to not provide due benefits in order to serve some ulterior motive.

Hopefully, vile clowns of this caliber are making more people uncomfortable as the vision of desolation that will result from unbridled corporatism starts to take form and the focus of future misery sharpens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. a real duh santorum. better damn well be jobs if you are expecting people to work forever. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. Idiot.
There aren't enough jobs for the people who want them now, much less if all us SS recipients wanted to get back into the work force. I feel like I did the youngsters a huge favor when I retired at 62-1/2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. What a twunt
CEOs live too long. I mean all they are is receptacles for the fruits of labor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
17. More Santorum idiocy. Of course, most of the difference in average lifespan represents ...
survival through childhood of infants and children. The only reasonable comparisons are of expected life from given ages, such as 60 or 65. Those are longer than in 1935, but not as much as the increase in the overall average lifespan.

And people differ, age at different rates. So, yes, some 62-year-olds ARE too old to work, while others can work much, much longer. And although some differences in aging are due to genetics, much is related to the social environment; and our society does not distribute rates of aging randomly. For example, African Americans are likely to age more rapidly than are whites, and have shorter average further-life expectancy at most ages -- and of course to have higher poverty rates so be more dependent on Social Security when they survive to collect it.

So, Santorum and much of the GOP are using nonsense arguments as a facade for policy positions that are anti-poor and in fact downright racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
18. Boy, did he make a mess of that statement.
A compassionate person could have made the reality of his intented point sound a lot less threatening. But he is, after all, a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wolf Frankula Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. You mean he made a frothy mixture of a mess
Santorum, like all conservonuts is a waste of skin and an oxygen waster. He is long overdue for extinction.

Wolf Frankula
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
19. He sure knows how to froth up a sticky mixture of controversy, doesn't he?
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 04:43 PM by Warren DeMontague
A veritable gooey, oozing mess of outrageous comments, that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
24. He is wrong about WHY Soc Sec was created, too.
It is officially called "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program."
And it was created out of the Great Depression ( not this depression, the one before it)
because too many families were starving and could not take care of the elderly, widows, and disabled.
In 1935, it was signed into law and covered unemployment also..it was indeed a much needed stimulus program.

From Wiki:
The Social Security Act was drafted during Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.

therefore, Santorum is misleading about the issue. He does not mention the issues of poverty, unemployment and disability that also make up the program. All he does is attempt to victimize people over 62.

and THAT stereotype is as valid as any other stereo type. NOT valid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine_Nurse Donating Member (688 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
25. Yes, he's a douchebag, but...
there is actually a useful concept to be had from the mouths of dickwads-- People are living longer and are thus more subject to longer and costly chronic illnesses (the medicare side of things) and the social security aspect. In order to properly provide for our country's retirees, we need to engineer our social programs to accommodate these issues, otherwise they will fail and keep on failing. Merely being sufficient to cope with the present is just insanity, we need our leaders to engineer for future needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
27. I am 72 years old and have been collecting social security
since I turned 65. I am going to live a lot longer until I get back every cent I have paid into social for all of my working days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
30. you first, santorum!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
31. Fuck him
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 07:29 PM by guitar man
Fuck him in the goddamned neck. :grr:

There's a flip side to that fucked up way of thinking. I'm 48 , and based on the sheer number of hours I've already worked vs the "standard" 40 hour week, I should have already retired. Long , hard, hot hours, 80, sometimes 100 hours in a week doing jobs like sandblasting , cleaning out oil storage tanks, fitter/welder etc. until my body was so broken down by age 36 that I had to stop, regroup and re-learn so I could take a desk job and get away from the labor that had damn near killed me.

And unlike his rich, powdered, pampered and priveleged ass with his SS cap on his "earnings" , I HAVE PAID FICA ON EVERY DOLLAR I HAVE EVER EARNED, for every miserable hour I have ever worked!!

After all the goddamned work I've done I don't need this sonofabitch telling me I'm going to live too long and need to sacrifice more. The bastard's got NO goddamned right.... none at all!! :grr:

He needs to STFU and take his frothy self back up the nearest asshole he can find. I've fucking had it.... I've had it... :mad:

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 Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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