If Ryan's plan for seniors is so great, why doesn't it apply to seniors?

[bucs90]

I read that Paul Ryan's austerity measures in his plan dont apply to anyone over 55 regarding benefits for seniors.

If they are saying their plan is so great for seniors, why doesn't it apply to our seniors?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can you do a complete 180 and expect to be taken seriously?

I just can't stop laughing at how gullible you are. Sorry

 

[g5000]

I read that Paul Ryan's austerity measures in his plan dont apply to anyone over 55 regarding benefits for seniors.

If they are saying their plan is so great for seniors, why doesn't it apply to our seniors?

One of the key elements of the program to make it work is to raise the eligibility age. Ryan's plan slowly raises the eligibility age to 67 by 2034. So this obviously cannot be implemented on people who retire sooner than that.

Myself, I would raise the Social Security and Medicare eligiblity ages to at least 70. And much more quickly.

We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

The average life expectancy when Social Security was enacted was 60, and only 6 percent of our population was over 65. Today, life expectancy is 78 and 13 percent of our population is over 65.

We have literally doubled our Social Security entitlement load.

Life expectancy when Medicare was enacted was 70. Now it is 78. So that entitlement load is now commensurately larger as well.


It is patently insane to insist we maintain the same retirement age as we live far longer than when our ancestors did when they enacted these programs.

.

 

[Misty]

I read that Paul Ryan's austerity measures in his plan dont apply to anyone over 55 regarding benefits for seniors.

If they are saying their plan is so great for seniors, why doesn't it apply to our seniors?

Idiot, if we don't reform it now, our seniors will
continue to get crappier care and eventually Medicare will break.

Ask Obama how cutting 700 billion from Medicare is going to
give seniors better health care. It isn't. Thats the reality, Medicare is dying.

We can't afford it.

The reason it won't effect people over 55 is because they have already planned their retirement around the present government promised system.

 

[bucs90]

How can you do a complete 180 and expect to be taken seriously?

I just can't stop laughing at how gullible you are. Sorry

I didn't do a 180. I took a side-step. My previous beliefs are still 90% intact. I do, however, observe with sadness how TP sponsored mayors and governors in the South are treating their cops and firemen with the same disdain they spew towards all "gubermint workers". And it lost my vote.

In an analogy, I offer a fat person losing weight. Sure, they need to cut some fat. But at a point it becomes unhealthy, even dangerous. The TP'ers down here, at least, have gotten to the unhealthy point....heading towards dangerous.

 

[bucs90]

I read that Paul Ryan's austerity measures in his plan dont apply to anyone over 55 regarding benefits for seniors.

If they are saying their plan is so great for seniors, why doesn't it apply to our seniors?

Idiot, if we don't reform it now, our seniors will
continue to get crappier care and eventually Medicare will break.

Ask Obama how cutting 700 billion from Medicare is going to
give seniors better health care. It isn't. Thats the reality, Medicare is dying.

We can't afford it.

The reason it won't effect people over 55 is because they have already planned their retirement around the present government promised system.

So the message would be....if you're under 55, expect a shitty retirement compared to what a 70 year old has right now?

Or....."Romney 2012; The Future is Bleak".

Just be honest. Thats all I'd ask.

 

[bucs90]

I do agree with raising the age though. 70 would be good.

 

[Full-Auto]

I do agree with raising the age though. 70 would be good.

Right, hope they die before they collect

Raise the age and fuck em..

What a great plan..........

 

[Oldstyle]

I read that Paul Ryan's austerity measures in his plan dont apply to anyone over 55 regarding benefits for seniors.

If they are saying their plan is so great for seniors, why doesn't it apply to our seniors?

For starters it's inherently unfair to cut benefits to people who have already retired or will be shortly, expecting to receive a certain level of benefits. For those Americans that are younger...the writing is already on the wall. There is not enough money in the system to pay for the entitlements that we have promised. Either the system becomes insolvent or we make cuts to benefits and raise the age to qualify for benefits. Anyone who tells you things can continue on as they are is flat out lying to you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can you do a complete 180 and expect to be taken seriously?

I just can't stop laughing at how gullible you are. Sorry

I didn't do a 180. I took a side-step. My previous beliefs are still 90% intact. I do, however, observe with sadness how TP sponsored mayors and governors in the South are treating their cops and firemen with the same disdain they spew towards all "gubermint workers". And it lost my vote.

In an analogy, I offer a fat person losing weight. Sure, they need to cut some fat. But at a point it becomes unhealthy, even dangerous. The TP'ers down here, at least, have gotten to the unhealthy point....heading towards dangerous.

So take it up with your local politicians. Pìssing in the water everyone drinks from is not the solution. I've always said that if you want change at the top you start with the bottom. Local budget complaints have nothing to do with presidential candidates either on the left or right.

You are over reacting

 

[Vel]

How can you do a complete 180 and expect to be taken seriously?

I just can't stop laughing at how gullible you are. Sorry

I didn't do a 180. I took a side-step. My previous beliefs are still 90% intact. I do, however, observe with sadness how TP sponsored mayors and governors in the South are treating their cops and firemen with the same disdain they spew towards all "gubermint workers". And it lost my vote.

In an analogy, I offer a fat person losing weight. Sure, they need to cut some fat. But at a point it becomes unhealthy, even dangerous. The TP'ers down here, at least, have gotten to the unhealthy point....heading towards dangerous.

No... You did a 180.

 

[g5000]

I do agree with raising the age though. 70 would be good.

Right, hope they die before they collect

Raise the age and fuck em..

What a great plan..........

Life expectancy when FDR enacted Social Security was 60. You could not collect Social Security until you were 65. So do you believe FDR had a "hope they die before they collect"?

We are living longer. What rational reason could you possibly give for not working longer? The only excuse is an entitlement mentality which encourages laziness.

 

[Katzndogz]

I read that Paul Ryan's austerity measures in his plan dont apply to anyone over 55 regarding benefits for seniors.

If they are saying their plan is so great for seniors, why doesn't it apply to our seniors?

One of the key elements of the program to make it work is to raise the eligibility age. Ryan's plan slowly raises the eligibility age to 67 by 2034. So this obviously cannot be implemented on people who retire sooner than that.

Myself, I would raise the Social Security and Medicare eligiblity ages to at least 70. And much more quickly.

We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

The average life expectancy when Social Security was enacted was 60, and only 6 percent of our population was over 65. Today, life expectancy is 78 and 13 percent of our population is over 65.

We have literally doubled our Social Security entitlement load.

Life expectancy when Medicare was enacted was 70. Now it is 78. So that entitlement load is now commensurately larger as well.


It is patently insane to insist we maintain the same retirement age as we live far longer than when our ancestors did when they enacted these programs.

.

Longevity is one of the reasons why Europe has consistently lowered the retirement age to 50 in some places. Young workers cannot replace retired workers until the older workers actually retire. Although we have a retirement age of 65, in reality most people work well into their 70s or even 80s. The result is a large number of people at much younger ages who cannot find a job.

What makes it even worse for younger workers is that active and interested seniors will volunteer for jobs that younger workers get paid to do. The liberal answer is to withhold medical care for older people so that they die sooner and open up the employment pool.

 

[g5000]

So the message would be....if you're under 55, expect a shitty retirement compared to what a 70 year old has right now?

Or....."Romney 2012; The Future is Bleak".

Just be honest. Thats all I'd ask.

No, that is not the message.

If you work five years longer, you are paying into the system five years longer and drawing out from the system five years less.

This makes the system far more healthy and able to provide more robust services.

 

[IGetItAlready]

I read that Paul Ryan's austerity measures in his plan dont apply to anyone over 55 regarding benefits for seniors.

If they are saying their plan is so great for seniors, why doesn't it apply to our seniors?

Some of the questions asked on this board are astounding...

 

[Full-Auto]

I do agree with raising the age though. 70 would be good.

Right, hope they die before they collect

Raise the age and fuck em..

What a great plan..........

Life expectancy when FDR enacted Social Security was 60. You could not collect Social Security until you were 65. So do you believe FDR had a "hope they die before they collect"?

We are living longer. What rational reason could you possibly give for not working longer? The only excuse is an entitlement mentality which encourages laziness.

It was part of the calculations. It is only speculation at motive.

 

[bucs90]

How can you do a complete 180 and expect to be taken seriously?

I just can't stop laughing at how gullible you are. Sorry

I didn't do a 180. I took a side-step. My previous beliefs are still 90% intact. I do, however, observe with sadness how TP sponsored mayors and governors in the South are treating their cops and firemen with the same disdain they spew towards all "gubermint workers". And it lost my vote.

In an analogy, I offer a fat person losing weight. Sure, they need to cut some fat. But at a point it becomes unhealthy, even dangerous. The TP'ers down here, at least, have gotten to the unhealthy point....heading towards dangerous.

So take it up with your local politicians. Pìssing in the water everyone drinks from is not the solution. I've always said that if you want change at the top you start with the bottom. Local budget complaints have nothing to do with presidential candidates either on the left or right.

You are over reacting

I am taking it up with them: By voting for their opposition, the Democrats.

Local PD and FD budgets are supplemented by the Feds. Some dont like that, like Mitt Romney:The Real Message Behind Mitt Romney’s Anti-Police And Firefighters ‘Gaffe’ | Mediaite

 

[g5000]

Longevity is one of the reasons why Europe has consistently lowered the retirement age to 50 in some places. Young workers cannot replace retired workers until the older workers actually retire. Although we have a retirement age of 65, in reality most people work well into their 70s or even 80s. The result is a large number of people at much younger ages who cannot find a job.

What makes it even worse for younger workers is that active and interested seniors will volunteer for jobs that younger workers get paid to do. The liberal answer is to withhold medical care for older people so that they die sooner and open up the employment pool.

Fabian systems suck at providing job growth for their populations which inevitably leads to centrally planned economies which then exacerbate poor job growth.

Because they suck at creating jobs, they then force younger and younger people into retirement, thereby snowballing the entitlement load and creating a slow downward spiral.

 

[mudwhistle]

I do agree with raising the age though. 70 would be good.

Right, hope they die before they collect

Raise the age and fuck em..

What a great plan..........

The dirty little secret is Congress has been using Social Security as their own little piggy-bank for years. Much of the debt is money borrowed from Social Security called intragovernmental funds.

Republicans have been trying to take Social Security and Medicare out of the hands of government and turn it over to the taxpayer. Let them control it. Keep Congress from stealing it year after year. Democrats want to keep the status-quo and continue to rip us off.

 

[g5000]

Right, hope they die before they collect

Raise the age and fuck em..

What a great plan..........

Life expectancy when FDR enacted Social Security was 60. You could not collect Social Security until you were 65. So do you believe FDR had a "hope they die before they collect"?

We are living longer. What rational reason could you possibly give for not working longer? The only excuse is an entitlement mentality which encourages laziness.

It was part of the calculations. It is only speculation at motive.

And what is your excuse for speculating at motive?

.