Author Topic: What would you say if we extended Social Security benefits to people 55 or older  (Read 2468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carl

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19742
  • Reputation: +1491/-100
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7903376

Quote
WCGreen  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:06 PM
Original message
What would you say if we extended Social Security benefits to people 55 or older
   
who suddenly find themselves unemployed and also unemployable?

What if we also provided full-time status to workers willing to work only 32 hours? They would be legible for full benefits but work less hours.

What if people with two part time jobs would be able to buy into Medicare and pay a premium in order to get medical benefits?

Just a few thoughts about the future if, as many folks feel, job creation is not going to be as robust as it once was

Ahhhh utopia.

Quote
Extend a Hand  (1000+ posts)        Fri Mar-12-10 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. and medicare
   the cost of insure keeps many people working that might be able to otherwise afford it. I think it's a great idea and would open up jobs for young people graduating.

How do you pay for it?

Quote
CaliforniaPeggy  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. I am all for that.
   We should be pushing for all those changes.

K&R

Stupid post *type type type*

Quote
Lerkfish  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Im all for it, since i"m close to that age and unemployed and apparently unemployable.
   further, people of my generation have put in more money into social security than any other, so we probably deserve it more, if you looked at it strictly as money paid in vs. money going out.

In other words...gimme

Quote
saracat  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Enthusiastially support it!

No job!!!!!!!!

Quote
ashling  (1000+ posts)        Fri Mar-12-10 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Interesting ideas
   They would help me out. I am 56, and legally blind in one eye. My wife works as an adjunct government instructor for 2 local community colleges and 1 University (2 classes at each) which equates to 3 part time jobs. I was a graduate assistant until I got my MA and graduated, so now our insurance is through Cobra and I am not able to find a teaching job because of my vision issues.

WTF...Please explain why that is.

Quote
Lance_Boyle (1000+ posts)        Fri Mar-12-10 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. People under 55 aren't going to go for a Soc Sec expansion, and rightfully so.
   We already know Social Security won't be there for us. And nobody likes to fund a benefit that they themselves can never receive. Certainly nobody wants to INCREASE the cost of a benefit that they themselves will never receive.

The 32-hour workweek idea I'm not so sure on. Workers would be paid less (and hourly workers would work less - everything would be the same for salaried folk, except the lower pay) but more of us would have jobs (that pay less). I'm not certain that the benefits outweigh the negatives, but it could be an interesting discussion.

Now stop pissing on the dreams of all those who want to suck the government teat.

Quote
WCGreen  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. It would be taking an early retirement.
   They would still be free to take part time jobs but would have the ability to be more flexible in their professional life. This would actually work to make the workforce more professional goal oriented instead of job oriented.

Interesting delusional fantasy but you might want to take note that the only goals any of your demented ilk have expressed was not working period.

Quote
OnlinePoker (144 posts)        Fri Mar-12-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. And pay for it how?
   SS can't even support itself now with the government ripping off every dollar put into it. If anything, it should go the other way. When the program began, only about 57% of adults made it to 65 and then the average life expectancy after that was 13.5 years. By 1990, around 77% of adults made it to 65 and life expectancy after that had increased to 17.5%. As of 2000, there were over 34.5 million Americans older than 65. This program is unsustainable without increasing the FICA taxes, something nobody wants.


Looks like I picked the wrong day to post sanity at DU.

Quote
LiberalEsto  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Tax corporations, end the oil wars. nt

See...told ya.

Quote
taught_me_patience  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. How do you propose we pay for this?

Interesting question.

Quote
WCGreen  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Over the long haul, prices would fall or people who aren't materialistic
   might be able to seek jobs that are more full filling.

But again, this would be an option for workers and not mandatory.

Think of the flexibility and not the cost.

Well that answers it. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
Don't think about how to pay for it!

Wow, is that bad advice or what?

Lets build a new pyramid scheme, even steeper than before.

What could go wrong?

Offline Lacarnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4154
  • Reputation: +316/-315
SS Trust fund is in such bad shape that the age will be increased instead of lowered. These mental giants need to understand no workee, no colectee.

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
SS Trust fund is in such bad shape that the age will be increased instead of lowered. These mental giants need to understand no workee, no colectee.

This won't be the ast year that Obama said "no COLA" for you!" either.

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1707/-151
Well, I would say "The only way that will work fiscally is by cutting the monthly benefits in half for the rest of your life and then means-testing them on top of that."

Sorry DUmmies, there aren't enough unicorns in the whole lollipop forest to poop out THAT many Skittles.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
If all entitlement spending and their bureaucracies and overhead was cut by 7%, what would be saved? I dunno. I'm too lazy to go look.

Offline crockspot

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Reputation: +80/-7
  • Bite me, libs.
That would be so cool. I might actually stand a chance of collecting unemployment until I can collect Social Security. Hand me the Cheetos and a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker!  :evillaugh:

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15

I was wondering what if lets say doctors and medical specialists all decided to go Galt at the same time and just retire to the country. Just a single sector of the economy that gets walloped, how would the government respond to that?

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1707/-151
It's going to seem like they did anyway, FGL, if Obamacare goes through.  Dumping 30 million expectant and demanding users onto an unchanged number of providers is going to make a medical appointment about as hard to get as a Brontosaurus Burger.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
It's going to seem like they did anyway, FGL, if Obamacare goes through.  Dumping 30 million expectant and demanding users onto an unchanged number of providers is going to make a medical appointment about as hard to get as a Brontosaurus Burger.

Look at RomneyCare. The number of specialists has gone down, people left the state to work elsewhere.

Offline JohnnyReb

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32063
  • Reputation: +1997/-134
Can I get 10 years back pay?.... :-)
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."  Stalin

Offline Tucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10935
  • Reputation: +535/-97
  • Making money the old fashioned way- Paid Mole
It will get to a point where 49% of the people who work will be supporting the 51% of those who don't or won't.

All hell will break loose.
Come to think of it, unions do create jobs. Companies have to hire two workers to do the work of one.

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1707/-151
Hell, Tucker, I'd say it looks like it's headed for 55/45 or even 60/40.

 :banghead:
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline Lacarnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4154
  • Reputation: +316/-315
This won't be the ast year that Obama said "no COLA" for you!" either.

I am not expecting any for the four years this @sshole in office. However, that will not stop federal workers from getting their raises especially those low life political critters and their staff. 

Offline Tucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10935
  • Reputation: +535/-97
  • Making money the old fashioned way- Paid Mole
Hell, Tucker, I'd say it looks like it's headed for 55/45 or even 60/40.

 :banghead:

Sounds like a campaign rally cry. 54-40 or fight. (remember that math is not the DUmmy's strong suit)
Come to think of it, unions do create jobs. Companies have to hire two workers to do the work of one.

Offline BEG

  • "Mile Marker"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17277
  • Reputation: +1062/-301
Quote
Lerkfish  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Im all for it, since i"m close to that age and unemployed and apparently unemployable.
   further, people of my generation have put in more money into social security than any other, so we probably deserve it more, if you looked at it strictly as money paid in vs. money going out.

If you use your rational then the rich deserve it more because they have technically paid more than you you loser. 

Offline kenth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
  • Reputation: +1/-0
Quote
Lerkfish  (1000+ posts)          Fri Mar-12-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Im all for it, since i"m close to that age and unemployed and apparently unemployable.
   further, people of my generation have put in more money into social security than any other, so we probably deserve it more, if you looked at it strictly as money paid in vs. money going out.

Translation: I've always been unemployed, but I'm the same age as people who have paid so I should be entitled to SS!

Offline NHSparky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24431
  • Reputation: +1278/-617
  • Where are you going? I was gonna make espresso!
Beck stated at the CPAC Conference (and I'm not sure where he got his numbers, but they sound right) that if SSI were age adjusted, men today wouldn't be eligible until age 75, and women wouldn't be eligible until 80.

Suck on that, DUmmies.
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  -Henry Ford

Offline vesta111

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Reputation: +493/-1154
Beck stated at the CPAC Conference (and I'm not sure where he got his numbers, but they sound right) that if SSI were age adjusted, men today wouldn't be eligible until age 75, and women wouldn't be eligible until 80.

Suck on that, DUmmies.

Age adjusted don't mean squat, with our fantastic medical advances people live longer but their body's are not able to function as well at 75 as it did at 30.

For those over the age of 65 that have worked all their lives at a non manual job they may be able to squeeze in another 5-8 years, even go to 70 with no problem.

For those of us who have had wear on our body's, lifting, pulling, standing for long hours,         [Nursing is one profession that wears out both male and females bodys]   Who wants to be in a hospital and have a 70 year old nurse come into the room with bad eyesite waving a catheter tube and try to find the place to install it, or take a blood sample from a vain they have to feel to find.  Darn I would not want a 70 year old doctor.

Do we have to make time to retire depend on what work one has done.?   

It is not our fault we now live longer, we get our vaccinations, antibiotics and surgery when needed.   If one is to find fault with SS# then one must look at the fact that most of us over 55 would not be here were it not for medical care. 

I myself have lived longer then both Grandfathers or their fathers. Woman did live longer way back when but that was before they had to work 3-4 jobs at once.   Woman had one job in life, to take care of their husbands and kids, work within the comunity on volunteer projects, perhaps even get a part time job.

When WW2 came woman had to join the work force as their men were over seas.  Woman found they could raise kids and build bombers at the same time.

When the war ended the government went on the propaganda war path that woman should give up their jobs so the returning men would have a job.

The government made it unfeminine and unfair for woman to keep a job that a returning serviceman needed to feed his family.  Most every Hollywood movie and the new fangled TV programs showed the woman at home.

These returning men who had been gone in some cases 4+ years had huge health problems, as they do today.

Then when the 20 year old anniversary of the wars end came, we still had men and women doing the same job at different salary's.  Woman began to go back into the work force and pay into SS#, this was never envisioned by the people that devised that plan.

How SS# can survive today with people living longer but unable to work as their body's just cannot function on the level of 40 years ago is anyones guess.

Nasty minded people believe that this National Health Care Bill is aimed at cutting down the number of elders that are retired.   Admittedly there are people that want to depopulate the world, placing the retired into a system of who gets care first, a child or 60 year old man is not inconceivable.   Triage they call it.


Rant ended

Offline NHSparky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24431
  • Reputation: +1278/-617
  • Where are you going? I was gonna make espresso!
It will get to a point where 49% of the people who work will be supporting the 51% of those who don't or won't.

All hell will break loose.

We're already at about 45/55, at least when you consider tax burden.
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  -Henry Ford

Offline NHSparky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24431
  • Reputation: +1278/-617
  • Where are you going? I was gonna make espresso!
Age adjusted don't mean squat, with our fantastic medical advances people live longer but their body's are not able to function as well at 75 as it did at 30.


Actually, that was pretty much my point.  When you consider the percentage of men and women who lived to age 65 in 1937 versus today, to lower that percentage down to the same level, you would have to increase the eligibility age by AT LEAST 10 years for both men and women.  Nobody ever said the body functions as well as we age, which is one of the reasons why our medical costs have skyrocketed so much.

But to sit there and rely on fewer people to support more would either bankrupt the system or force a reduction in benefits (including Medicare) to such a point as to be rendered basically worthless.
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  -Henry Ford

Offline vesta111

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Reputation: +493/-1154
We're already at about 45/55, at least when you consider tax burden.

Question here Sparky, do people who have never worked due to not health but choice get money or go on SS# when they reach a certain age ?

Offline NHSparky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24431
  • Reputation: +1278/-617
  • Where are you going? I was gonna make espresso!
Question here Sparky, do people who have never worked due to not health but choice get money or go on SS# when they reach a certain age ?

If found eligible in some cases, one can go on SSI or SSI Disability at any age.

LINK

Quote
Basically, an individual must have paid Social Security taxes on his or her wages long enough to qualify for benefits. Generally, this means that claimants must have a fairly consistent work history, and have worked a minimum of five of the ten years previous to the onset of disability. The work credit requirement can be somewhat less for younger applicants, as parents’ work credits can be applied to applicants under the age of 22.

In the case of need-based Supplemental Security Income (SSI), there are no work requirements because the program is financed through general tax revenues and not by the Social Security tax. In order to qualify for SSI, individuals must be over 65 years old, by legally blind, or be disabled, and have total family assets amounting to less than $3000. Assets, as determined by the SSA, include income (wages, pensions, other benefits programs, etc.) and resources (stock holdings, real estate, cash savings, etc.). Individuals who meet these requirements may be eligible for SSI payments regardless of previous work history.
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  -Henry Ford

Offline Tucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10935
  • Reputation: +535/-97
  • Making money the old fashioned way- Paid Mole
Question here Sparky, do people who have never worked due to not health but choice get money or go on SS# when they reach a certain age ?

They can go on SS using a legal spouses income. Shacking up don't qualify.
Come to think of it, unions do create jobs. Companies have to hire two workers to do the work of one.

Offline jukin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15750
  • Reputation: +1724/-170
Look this is doable. We just start making money out of thin air...wait we have been for the last three years under the donk congress headed by Nanzi and the man-child. THAT'S IT!!!1111!1 We just keep printing up more money then everyone will have money.

All is well.
When you are the beneficiary of someone’s kindness and generosity, it produces a sense of gratitude and community.

When you are the beneficiary of a policy that steals from someone and gives it to you in return for your vote, it produces a sense of entitlement and dependency.