Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."countries receives less from social security relative to our per capita income, than those in Chili do.
First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!
Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.
As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.
That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.
Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.
And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.
Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform
Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.
Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).
All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.
Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?
So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en
Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.
View attachment 49425
Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.
Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.
You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.
Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!
Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.
As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.
That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.
Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.
And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.
Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform
Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.
Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).
All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.
Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?
So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en
Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.
View attachment 49425
Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.
Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.
You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.
Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.
As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.
That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.
Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.
And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.
Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform
Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.
Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).
All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.
Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?
So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en
Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.
View attachment 49425
Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.
Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.
You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.
Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.
I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?
If someone is disabled, that is a different story.
Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.
I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?
If someone is disabled, that is a different story.
Or we raise the contribution cap..Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.
I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?
If someone is disabled, that is a different story.
You're kidding yourself.
That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.
Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."First of all its CHILE (not chili peppers)....but more importantly instead of relying on right wing sources, LEARN the problems that Chile is having with its "privatized" retirement system......Chile's system is FAILING !!!
Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.
As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.
That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.
Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.
And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.
Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform
Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.
Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).
All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.
Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?
So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en
Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.
View attachment 49425
Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.
Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.
You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.
Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
Still bringing up greece, eh?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."Yes yes. I am well aware of my public education which failed to teach me spelling. I make typos and miss them constantly. Yippy skip.
As I said before, every system that is socialized has problems. The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism. If I control my own money, and reap the rewards or consequences of my own choices, that system works the best. And by definition, it never poses a problem for the public.
That said... as I said before the less socialized, and more capitalist it is, the better, and the more socialized and less capitalist, the worse off it is.
Can you tell me that any of the problems faced by Chile, is even remotely close the problems faced by Greece? Not even close. Not even by the most broad measure, does Chile have even a fraction of the problems of Greece.
And I keep calling it the Chilean system, but you keep referring to specifically the country of Chile.
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the system. The Chilean system is used in dozens of countries. Each with varying levels of privatization, but all based on the Chilean model.
Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform
Even the Social Security Administration itself, admits the system works well, and is used by many many countries.
Argentina (1994), Bolivia (1997),Colombia (1993), Costa Rica (1995), Dominican Republic (2003), El Salvador (1998), Mexico (1997), Panama (2008), Peru (1993), and Uruguay (1996).
All of these countries have adopted the Chilean system.
Are you telling me that each and every single one of these countries, all adopted a failing model, and now all of these countries are failing?
So you, mr. internet forum guy, you know better than the SSA and all these countries, that their system doesn't work.
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4853&langId=en
Even the European Commission covered the expanding and growing use of private pensions.
View attachment 49425
Only France, Spain, Malta, and Luxembourg abstain from private pensions.
Everyone else on that list, has moved towards privatizing pensions.
You are telling me, all of these countries, and all the Latin countries, everyone everywhere is wrong..... but you... you know better.
Nah, I doubt it. The evidence doesn't support it. You and your opinion article, are not right. All of them are.
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
LOL..... You don't get it..... the system is going BROKE..... Do not understand BROKE? Our government can not afford it, and no amount of taxes is going to change it.
We can't afford the current system "Yeah but they love it"... and and the pensioners in Greece loved it.... and it still went broke. It is not sustainable, and you repeating that people like the going broke system, doesn't change the facts. The retirement age is going to go up.
It *WILL* happen. That's not even debatable.
Good grief... you are worse than my 5-year-old niece....."But I want it! I want it!".... doesn't matter darling.... I don't have the money.
Leftist- "But we like it! But we like it"
DOES NOT MATTER! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY!
You keep saying people like it, as if that magically changes the dysfunction of the system... it does not.
Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
You've been to the wrong nursing home then, and nursing homes are for seniors who can't take care of themselves, fail?Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Yes! Yes I have! Dude, that's why I feel strongly about this!
I've been to the elderly homes, the hospice homes, the retirement homes. I've been to them all.
And one thing I can tell you very clearly... if you don't have retirement in place, if you live based on the belief that government will take care of you, you are end for a bad bad shock.
The medicaid retirement homes, the Social Security retirement homes..... ARE TERRIBLE. Holes in the floor. Bad paint. Dirty. People live in apartments smaller than my first rental unit.
I've been in places so bad, it was horrific. Like something out of a Freddy Kruger movie.
That's what awaits people who think government is going to take care of them.
I've been at other places though..... places where they had red carpet, 24-hour food service, and private Movie theaters built into the place. Places with private fitness instructors, 5-day-a-week transportation, and a beer and wine bar that was open every night for 6 hours.
Which place do you want to be in? You can't get to place B, without a retirement... not a government Social Security / Medicaid retirement, but a 401K, or IRA with money in it.
You can't have money in your 401K, and IRA, when it's sucked away into Social Security. Again, just playing with some numbers. If all the money that right now, had been placed into the IRA that I currently own, back when I started working at 16... I'd be on track to have $2 Million dollars.
Oh, but that's not good at all. Thanks to morons like you, I'll have a fat $700 Check. Gee, thanks mister leftist. You sure saved me from poverty.
You HARM people dude. You HARM us.
Still bringing up greece, eh?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel."The only system that never has any problems, is free-market capitalism."
You've been rehashing the same points throughout this thread, I've already addressed greece. In regards to your hilarious statement, you do realize "free market" capitalism existed in europe/america before the state had to step in? It was horrible, organized labor rose up, revolutions were had (europe) workers rose, and eventually the state stepped in with things like work safety laws, environmental regulation, the minimum wage, social security.. (Seniors were fucked before SS, that's a fact, and SS keeps tens of millions out of poverty.)
Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
LOL..... You don't get it..... the system is going BROKE..... Do not understand BROKE? Our government can not afford it, and no amount of taxes is going to change it.
We can't afford the current system "Yeah but they love it"... and and the pensioners in Greece loved it.... and it still went broke. It is not sustainable, and you repeating that people like the going broke system, doesn't change the facts. The retirement age is going to go up.
It *WILL* happen. That's not even debatable.
Good grief... you are worse than my 5-year-old niece....."But I want it! I want it!".... doesn't matter darling.... I don't have the money.
Leftist- "But we like it! But we like it"
DOES NOT MATTER! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY!
You keep saying people like it, as if that magically changes the dysfunction of the system... it does not.
"
Increase the Payroll Tax Cap
The Social Security payroll tax currently applies to annual earnings up to $110,100. Any wages earned above $110,100 go untaxed for Social Security. This cap generally increases every year as the national average wage increases. Today, the cap covers about 84 percent of total earnings in the nation. Raising the cap to cover a higher percent of total earnings would help close Social Security’s funding gap. How much depends on how high the cap is set and how quickly the cap would be raised to reach that level. One commonly mentioned goal would raise the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings, which in 2012 would have meant a cap of about $215,000. This would mean any employee earning more than the current tax cap of $110,100 (as well as his or her employer) would have to pay more payroll taxes, up to about $6,500 per year for those earning $215,000 a year or more. Raising the cap to 90 percent is estimated to fill 36 percent of the funding gap.
PRO: Lifting the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings is sensible and fair. Only 6 percent of workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. It is fair for top earners to pay more into Social Security, and they would get a bit more in benefits. This change reflects the intent of Congress in 1977, when it set the cap to include 90 percent of earnings. Congress also provided for automatic adjustments for average wage growth so that the cap would continue to cover 90 percent. But with today’s top earners enjoying much bigger gains than everyone else, the cap now covers only about 84 percent of all earnings. This proposal, together with other changes, could keep Social Security strong and pay for benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance)
"
You've been to the wrong nursing home then, and nursing homes are for seniors who can't take care of themselves, fail?Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Yes! Yes I have! Dude, that's why I feel strongly about this!
I've been to the elderly homes, the hospice homes, the retirement homes. I've been to them all.
And one thing I can tell you very clearly... if you don't have retirement in place, if you live based on the belief that government will take care of you, you are end for a bad bad shock.
The medicaid retirement homes, the Social Security retirement homes..... ARE TERRIBLE. Holes in the floor. Bad paint. Dirty. People live in apartments smaller than my first rental unit.
I've been in places so bad, it was horrific. Like something out of a Freddy Kruger movie.
That's what awaits people who think government is going to take care of them.
I've been at other places though..... places where they had red carpet, 24-hour food service, and private Movie theaters built into the place. Places with private fitness instructors, 5-day-a-week transportation, and a beer and wine bar that was open every night for 6 hours.
Which place do you want to be in? You can't get to place B, without a retirement... not a government Social Security / Medicaid retirement, but a 401K, or IRA with money in it.
You can't have money in your 401K, and IRA, when it's sucked away into Social Security. Again, just playing with some numbers. If all the money that right now, had been placed into the IRA that I currently own, back when I started working at 16... I'd be on track to have $2 Million dollars.
Oh, but that's not good at all. Thanks to morons like you, I'll have a fat $700 Check. Gee, thanks mister leftist. You sure saved me from poverty.
You HARM people dude. You HARM us.
The same argument has been used over and over again, you're wrong. The world didn't collapse when the MW was put in place, workers benefited, and they still do, same with welfare programs. The top 90% would demand more benefits? Like what?Still bringing up greece, eh?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.Please point out where you addressed Greece.
SS keeps many seniors from starving.
An average payout of 1000 isn't staying out of poverty (and you can spare me the it's-better-than-starving argument....it isn't).
Seniors were trapped in the changing times prior to SS.
Up until the late 1800's, they lived on farms or worked in businesses. As they grew, they were given less and less to do. But they stayed engaged. The industrial revolution marginalized them.
Unemployment amongst seniors during the Great Depression was well above the overall average (reaching as high as 60%). They needed relief.
Did we need a permanent stupid system like we have now ? No.
The system was necessary to help adapt to a change. But, true to form....once the government had it in place, they wree not changing it (materially) except to put more people on it and raise taxes for it.
Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
LOL..... You don't get it..... the system is going BROKE..... Do not understand BROKE? Our government can not afford it, and no amount of taxes is going to change it.
We can't afford the current system "Yeah but they love it"... and and the pensioners in Greece loved it.... and it still went broke. It is not sustainable, and you repeating that people like the going broke system, doesn't change the facts. The retirement age is going to go up.
It *WILL* happen. That's not even debatable.
Good grief... you are worse than my 5-year-old niece....."But I want it! I want it!".... doesn't matter darling.... I don't have the money.
Leftist- "But we like it! But we like it"
DOES NOT MATTER! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY!
You keep saying people like it, as if that magically changes the dysfunction of the system... it does not.
"
Increase the Payroll Tax Cap
The Social Security payroll tax currently applies to annual earnings up to $110,100. Any wages earned above $110,100 go untaxed for Social Security. This cap generally increases every year as the national average wage increases. Today, the cap covers about 84 percent of total earnings in the nation. Raising the cap to cover a higher percent of total earnings would help close Social Security’s funding gap. How much depends on how high the cap is set and how quickly the cap would be raised to reach that level. One commonly mentioned goal would raise the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings, which in 2012 would have meant a cap of about $215,000. This would mean any employee earning more than the current tax cap of $110,100 (as well as his or her employer) would have to pay more payroll taxes, up to about $6,500 per year for those earning $215,000 a year or more. Raising the cap to 90 percent is estimated to fill 36 percent of the funding gap.
PRO: Lifting the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings is sensible and fair. Only 6 percent of workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. It is fair for top earners to pay more into Social Security, and they would get a bit more in benefits. This change reflects the intent of Congress in 1977, when it set the cap to include 90 percent of earnings. Congress also provided for automatic adjustments for average wage growth so that the cap would continue to cover 90 percent. But with today’s top earners enjoying much bigger gains than everyone else, the cap now covers only about 84 percent of all earnings. This proposal, together with other changes, could keep Social Security strong and pay for benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance)
"
We've already covered this. When you increase taxes, people will change their compensation, to reduce their tax burden. The entire claim is false. It's been proven many many times.
And it also ignores that people in the top 90% of earnings, would also demand more benefits, which is right for them to do. You don't get to take our money, for nothing. That was the whole reason we had a revolution against Briton. When you include higher benefits, you won't stabilize Social Security for any amount of time.
But keep spewing your already disproved claims over and over, and we'll keep shooting them down over and over.
Or we raise the contribution cap..Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.
I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?
If someone is disabled, that is a different story.
You're kidding yourself.
That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.
The same argument has been used over and over again, you're wrong. The world didn't collapse when the MW was put in place, workers benefited, and they still do, same with welfare programs. The top 90% would demand more benefits? Like what?Still bringing up greece, eh?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
LOL..... You don't get it..... the system is going BROKE..... Do not understand BROKE? Our government can not afford it, and no amount of taxes is going to change it.
We can't afford the current system "Yeah but they love it"... and and the pensioners in Greece loved it.... and it still went broke. It is not sustainable, and you repeating that people like the going broke system, doesn't change the facts. The retirement age is going to go up.
It *WILL* happen. That's not even debatable.
Good grief... you are worse than my 5-year-old niece....."But I want it! I want it!".... doesn't matter darling.... I don't have the money.
Leftist- "But we like it! But we like it"
DOES NOT MATTER! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY!
You keep saying people like it, as if that magically changes the dysfunction of the system... it does not.
"
Increase the Payroll Tax Cap
The Social Security payroll tax currently applies to annual earnings up to $110,100. Any wages earned above $110,100 go untaxed for Social Security. This cap generally increases every year as the national average wage increases. Today, the cap covers about 84 percent of total earnings in the nation. Raising the cap to cover a higher percent of total earnings would help close Social Security’s funding gap. How much depends on how high the cap is set and how quickly the cap would be raised to reach that level. One commonly mentioned goal would raise the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings, which in 2012 would have meant a cap of about $215,000. This would mean any employee earning more than the current tax cap of $110,100 (as well as his or her employer) would have to pay more payroll taxes, up to about $6,500 per year for those earning $215,000 a year or more. Raising the cap to 90 percent is estimated to fill 36 percent of the funding gap.
PRO: Lifting the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings is sensible and fair. Only 6 percent of workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. It is fair for top earners to pay more into Social Security, and they would get a bit more in benefits. This change reflects the intent of Congress in 1977, when it set the cap to include 90 percent of earnings. Congress also provided for automatic adjustments for average wage growth so that the cap would continue to cover 90 percent. But with today’s top earners enjoying much bigger gains than everyone else, the cap now covers only about 84 percent of all earnings. This proposal, together with other changes, could keep Social Security strong and pay for benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance)
"
We've already covered this. When you increase taxes, people will change their compensation, to reduce their tax burden. The entire claim is false. It's been proven many many times.
And it also ignores that people in the top 90% of earnings, would also demand more benefits, which is right for them to do. You don't get to take our money, for nothing. That was the whole reason we had a revolution against Briton. When you include higher benefits, you won't stabilize Social Security for any amount of time.
But keep spewing your already disproved claims over and over, and we'll keep shooting them down over and over.
You fail to recognize those EU countries without minimum wages have extremely strong labor unions and things such as: Guaranteed maternity leave, guaranteed paid sick leave, etc, etc..The same argument has been used over and over again, you're wrong. The world didn't collapse when the MW was put in place, workers benefited, and they still do, same with welfare programs. The top 90% would demand more benefits? Like what?Still bringing up greece, eh?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.
LOL..... You don't get it..... the system is going BROKE..... Do not understand BROKE? Our government can not afford it, and no amount of taxes is going to change it.
We can't afford the current system "Yeah but they love it"... and and the pensioners in Greece loved it.... and it still went broke. It is not sustainable, and you repeating that people like the going broke system, doesn't change the facts. The retirement age is going to go up.
It *WILL* happen. That's not even debatable.
Good grief... you are worse than my 5-year-old niece....."But I want it! I want it!".... doesn't matter darling.... I don't have the money.
Leftist- "But we like it! But we like it"
DOES NOT MATTER! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY!
You keep saying people like it, as if that magically changes the dysfunction of the system... it does not.
"
Increase the Payroll Tax Cap
The Social Security payroll tax currently applies to annual earnings up to $110,100. Any wages earned above $110,100 go untaxed for Social Security. This cap generally increases every year as the national average wage increases. Today, the cap covers about 84 percent of total earnings in the nation. Raising the cap to cover a higher percent of total earnings would help close Social Security’s funding gap. How much depends on how high the cap is set and how quickly the cap would be raised to reach that level. One commonly mentioned goal would raise the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings, which in 2012 would have meant a cap of about $215,000. This would mean any employee earning more than the current tax cap of $110,100 (as well as his or her employer) would have to pay more payroll taxes, up to about $6,500 per year for those earning $215,000 a year or more. Raising the cap to 90 percent is estimated to fill 36 percent of the funding gap.
PRO: Lifting the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings is sensible and fair. Only 6 percent of workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. It is fair for top earners to pay more into Social Security, and they would get a bit more in benefits. This change reflects the intent of Congress in 1977, when it set the cap to include 90 percent of earnings. Congress also provided for automatic adjustments for average wage growth so that the cap would continue to cover 90 percent. But with today’s top earners enjoying much bigger gains than everyone else, the cap now covers only about 84 percent of all earnings. This proposal, together with other changes, could keep Social Security strong and pay for benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance)
"
We've already covered this. When you increase taxes, people will change their compensation, to reduce their tax burden. The entire claim is false. It's been proven many many times.
And it also ignores that people in the top 90% of earnings, would also demand more benefits, which is right for them to do. You don't get to take our money, for nothing. That was the whole reason we had a revolution against Briton. When you include higher benefits, you won't stabilize Social Security for any amount of time.
But keep spewing your already disproved claims over and over, and we'll keep shooting them down over and over.
And yet, the unemployment rates have increased every single time the minimum wage has significantly increased, and I posted proof that unemployment is higher in EU countries that have a MW, over those that do not.
So, apparently you are wrong. It has harmed the workers. I never suggested the world would end. Only that low-skilled workers would be harmed, and the evidence shows that.
More Social Security payouts relative to their increased Social Security tax. Which is exactly what the last bill to increase the wage cap included.
Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.Actually it's worse. Many seniors are forced by the poverty level payout of Social Security to get a job.
But when they have a job, they lose their SS benefits. Yet the wages they earn at their job, are taxed into SS. So they are paying into SS for benefits they are disqualified from getting, because they work.
Social Security is a horrific program that harms everyone.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.
I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?
If someone is disabled, that is a different story.
Or we raise the contribution cap..Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.
I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?
If someone is disabled, that is a different story.
You're kidding yourself.
That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.
I said it needs to stay that way, it doesn't mean I am saying it won't go up.Oh, they existed, but 65 is what it is, and it needs to stay that way.Have you ever been to a nursing home? Seen the problems that develop within the elderly?Explain that to the overwhelming majority of the american people who support it, and since you love using anecdotal experience, every senior I've ever met who loves it. Oh, I also can't understand the nuts who want to raise the retirement age to 70, that's just cruel.
What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.
I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.
Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.
Are you saying those problems didn't exist back when it was formed. People didn't suddenly turn old at 65. Especially those who had labor intensive jobs.
I've been to plenty of nursing homes. I also know the gold courses are littered with people well past 70. Why should we subsidize able bodied people ?
If someone is disabled, that is a different story.
Doesn't matter what you think. It's going to go up. Period. Everyone not living in a fantasy world, knows that. That's not even debated on capital hill really. Even the Socialist left-wing, knows 65 isn't even remotely sustainable.
Do you not even attempt to connect this debate with reality?
