John Kasich Kills The Old People Vote Single Handedly

[nuhuh]

The brain trust of nuhuh and mathew have spoken!! It's over!

Why bother to even hold an election.......?

I don't mean to appear snide but the Republican party was clearly told all this in 2012. They said you had to develop a percentage of a minority vote to guarantee a win and they went right out and pissed everyone off. Kasich opened his mouth today and what for? you need old people to be a reliable Republican voter. Honest to John this is the kind of conversation you have after you've been elected.

You must live in a fantasy world. The "old vote" is solidly Republican because as people get older they tend to become more conservative. That's not going to change because of what one "candidate" who's polling at 4% says at a meaningless campaign stop.

You're right of course, but old people get fearful easily so its not something you want your candidates throwing out on a stage. It is a fact that just ten years ago George Bush thought he was going to change Social Security and had his ass handed to him and good for everyone who draws it that didn't happen in the middle of the financial meltdown.

What? We're talking like 1% to 3%? That's not going to bankrupt anybody. And think, because of the giant rebound by the stock market, would those retirees not be in better shape today if they invested some of that SS money?

I guess the proper response to that is what would have happened to those that lost everything and what could we have done for them in the middle of a meltdown? Those are the kind of questions that need to figure prominently in any change. I'm not against change for those who want that option, I just don't want to see an on going tragedy because we didn't estimate for failure. Also I'm figuring there won't be a high risk option for investors unless they're really young.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The brain trust of nuhuh and mathew have spoken!! It's over!

Why bother to even hold an election.......?

I don't mean to appear snide but the Republican party was clearly told all this in 2012. They said you had to develop a percentage of a minority vote to guarantee a win and they went right out and pissed everyone off. Kasich opened his mouth today and what for? you need old people to be a reliable Republican voter. Honest to John this is the kind of conversation you have after you've been elected.

Kasich is only telling the truth when you look at the disaster that is Social Security. It was a bad idea from the beginning because somebody is going to have to lose. Either that, or we increase the SS taxes and keep it like it is. But for most of us, SS is the second highest tax out of your paycheck when you consider that your employer has to match your contribution. FICA? Just another fancy term for Social Security.

The first thing that needs to be done is put a stop to politicians borrowing from the fund. They take the money and put in an IOU for future presidents to deal with down the road.

Social Security is cheap when you consider that something like 62% of the people who draw it are completely dependent upon it. The system also only needs fine tuning much like what Reagan did and until someone comes up with a proven workable model to replace it, it's all we have taking care of millions of seniors. Yes to the last part, it should have a Gore lock box which after all these years isn't so funny anymore.

The percentage that rely upon SS benefits for 90% of their income is 35%. 64% rely upon it for at least half or their income.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

I agree that we need to change the program to save it. We can remove the cap on income and the program is solid for another 30 years or more. Add in a phased in gradual increase of retirement age and it can easily be stabilized for a lot longer.

Okay, so all those people (most blue collar workers) that can't make it until the age of 70 will then be on SS disability. Where is the benefit?

 

[nuhuh]

The brain trust of nuhuh and mathew have spoken!! It's over!

Why bother to even hold an election.......?

I don't mean to appear snide but the Republican party was clearly told all this in 2012. They said you had to develop a percentage of a minority vote to guarantee a win and they went right out and pissed everyone off. Kasich opened his mouth today and what for? you need old people to be a reliable Republican voter. Honest to John this is the kind of conversation you have after you've been elected.

Kasich is only telling the truth when you look at the disaster that is Social Security. It was a bad idea from the beginning because somebody is going to have to lose. Either that, or we increase the SS taxes and keep it like it is. But for most of us, SS is the second highest tax out of your paycheck when you consider that your employer has to match your contribution. FICA? Just another fancy term for Social Security.

The first thing that needs to be done is put a stop to politicians borrowing from the fund. They take the money and put in an IOU for future presidents to deal with down the road.

Social Security is cheap when you consider that something like 62% of the people who draw it are completely dependent upon it. The system also only needs fine tuning much like what Reagan did and until someone comes up with a proven workable model to replace it, it's all we have taking care of millions of seniors. Yes to the last part, it should have a Gore lock box which after all these years isn't so funny anymore.

The percentage that rely upon SS benefits for 90% of their income is 35%. 64% rely upon it for at least half or their income.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

I agree that we need to change the program to save it. We can remove the cap on income and the program is solid for another 30 years or more. Add in a phased in gradual increase of retirement age and it can easily be stabilized for a lot longer.

I think I could go for that as long as the early retirement option is left open so that some of those workers that Ray referred to can pull the plug when their body gives up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The brain trust of nuhuh and mathew have spoken!! It's over!

Why bother to even hold an election.......?

I don't mean to appear snide but the Republican party was clearly told all this in 2012. They said you had to develop a percentage of a minority vote to guarantee a win and they went right out and pissed everyone off. Kasich opened his mouth today and what for? you need old people to be a reliable Republican voter. Honest to John this is the kind of conversation you have after you've been elected.

You must live in a fantasy world. The "old vote" is solidly Republican because as people get older they tend to become more conservative. That's not going to change because of what one "candidate" who's polling at 4% says at a meaningless campaign stop.

You're right of course, but old people get fearful easily so its not something you want your candidates throwing out on a stage. It is a fact that just ten years ago George Bush thought he was going to change Social Security and had his ass handed to him and good for everyone who draws it that didn't happen in the middle of the financial meltdown.

What? We're talking like 1% to 3%? That's not going to bankrupt anybody. And think, because of the giant rebound by the stock market, would those retirees not be in better shape today if they invested some of that SS money?

I guess the proper response to that is what would have happened to those that lost everything and what could we have done for them in the middle of a meltdown? Those are the kind of questions that need to figure prominently in any change. I'm not against change for those who want that option, I just don't want to see an on going tragedy because we didn't estimate for failure. Also I'm figuring there won't be a high risk option for investors unless they're really young.

Well if you did retire at that time, you would still have had your regular 97% of SS to keep you going. The market has a history; it always comes back. So that 3% you invested, just let it sit there for a while.

After all, that's what my investment company did that handles my retirement account. They sat on my employers and my contributions while the market took a nose dive. When it was just about to bottom out, they invested all that money into the market. I was buying three shares for the price of one previously. I made out like a bandit. The rest is history.

 

[Zander]

The brain trust of nuhuh and mathew have spoken!! It's over!

Why bother to even hold an election.......?

I don't mean to appear snide but the Republican party was clearly told all this in 2012. They said you had to develop a percentage of a minority vote to guarantee a win and they went right out and pissed everyone off. Kasich opened his mouth today and what for? you need old people to be a reliable Republican voter. Honest to John this is the kind of conversation you have after you've been elected.

Kasich is only telling the truth when you look at the disaster that is Social Security. It was a bad idea from the beginning because somebody is going to have to lose. Either that, or we increase the SS taxes and keep it like it is. But for most of us, SS is the second highest tax out of your paycheck when you consider that your employer has to match your contribution. FICA? Just another fancy term for Social Security.

The first thing that needs to be done is put a stop to politicians borrowing from the fund. They take the money and put in an IOU for future presidents to deal with down the road.

Social Security is cheap when you consider that something like 62% of the people who draw it are completely dependent upon it. The system also only needs fine tuning much like what Reagan did and until someone comes up with a proven workable model to replace it, it's all we have taking care of millions of seniors. Yes to the last part, it should have a Gore lock box which after all these years isn't so funny anymore.

The percentage that rely upon SS benefits for 90% of their income is 35%. 64% rely upon it for at least half or their income.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

I agree that we need to change the program to save it. We can remove the cap on income and the program is solid for another 30 years or more. Add in a phased in gradual increase of retirement age and it can easily be stabilized for a lot longer.

Okay, so all those people (most blue collar workers) that can't make it until the age of 70 will then be on SS disability. Where is the benefit?

We can easily change the early retirement age (with reduced benefits) to 64 or 65. with full retirement age at 70 over a period of 25 years. It won't be an abrupt change for anyone.

The reality is people are living longer, healthier lives. They can work longer. Oftentimes they want to work longer! Retirement is not permanent either. I know lots of old folks who;ve retired for a few years, then gone back to work!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't mean to appear snide but the Republican party was clearly told all this in 2012. They said you had to develop a percentage of a minority vote to guarantee a win and they went right out and pissed everyone off. Kasich opened his mouth today and what for? you need old people to be a reliable Republican voter. Honest to John this is the kind of conversation you have after you've been elected.

Kasich is only telling the truth when you look at the disaster that is Social Security. It was a bad idea from the beginning because somebody is going to have to lose. Either that, or we increase the SS taxes and keep it like it is. But for most of us, SS is the second highest tax out of your paycheck when you consider that your employer has to match your contribution. FICA? Just another fancy term for Social Security.

The first thing that needs to be done is put a stop to politicians borrowing from the fund. They take the money and put in an IOU for future presidents to deal with down the road.

Social Security is cheap when you consider that something like 62% of the people who draw it are completely dependent upon it. The system also only needs fine tuning much like what Reagan did and until someone comes up with a proven workable model to replace it, it's all we have taking care of millions of seniors. Yes to the last part, it should have a Gore lock box which after all these years isn't so funny anymore.

The percentage that rely upon SS benefits for 90% of their income is 35%. 64% rely upon it for at least half or their income.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

I agree that we need to change the program to save it. We can remove the cap on income and the program is solid for another 30 years or more. Add in a phased in gradual increase of retirement age and it can easily be stabilized for a lot longer.

Okay, so all those people (most blue collar workers) that can't make it until the age of 70 will then be on SS disability. Where is the benefit?

We can easily change the early retirement age (with reduced benefits) to 64 or 65. with full retirement age at 70 over a period of 25 years. It won't be an abrupt change for anyone.

The reality is people are living longer, healthier lives. They can work longer. Oftentimes they want to work longer! Retirement is not permanent either. I know lots of old folks who;ve retired for a few years, then gone back to work!

Well that's great for them, but again, there are a lot of jobs where people can't do that.

Half of my family is in construction. Now that my cousins are nearing retirement age, they struggle every day to make it. They would retire if they could, but they have no choice but to kill themselves. All of them have undergone several surgeries just to keep working.

As for myself, it doesn't happen very often, but at times, I have to deliver to a place that has no docks. The company refuses to send their workers out to unload the truck, so I have to unload an entire tractor-trailer by myself with a pallet jack. That was fine 30 years ago when I was young and muscular, but today, that's a different story.

Yes, we are living longer, but ask yourself: how many of your family members would be alive today if we had no medical technology? Probably none of us if you're past the age of 45. Just because our doctors and surgeons can fix you up doesn't mean you are as good as new. Trust me, I wish that were the case.

 

[Zander]

Kasich is only telling the truth when you look at the disaster that is Social Security. It was a bad idea from the beginning because somebody is going to have to lose. Either that, or we increase the SS taxes and keep it like it is. But for most of us, SS is the second highest tax out of your paycheck when you consider that your employer has to match your contribution. FICA? Just another fancy term for Social Security.

The first thing that needs to be done is put a stop to politicians borrowing from the fund. They take the money and put in an IOU for future presidents to deal with down the road.

Social Security is cheap when you consider that something like 62% of the people who draw it are completely dependent upon it. The system also only needs fine tuning much like what Reagan did and until someone comes up with a proven workable model to replace it, it's all we have taking care of millions of seniors. Yes to the last part, it should have a Gore lock box which after all these years isn't so funny anymore.

The percentage that rely upon SS benefits for 90% of their income is 35%. 64% rely upon it for at least half or their income.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

I agree that we need to change the program to save it. We can remove the cap on income and the program is solid for another 30 years or more. Add in a phased in gradual increase of retirement age and it can easily be stabilized for a lot longer.

Okay, so all those people (most blue collar workers) that can't make it until the age of 70 will then be on SS disability. Where is the benefit?

We can easily change the early retirement age (with reduced benefits) to 64 or 65. with full retirement age at 70 over a period of 25 years. It won't be an abrupt change for anyone.

The reality is people are living longer, healthier lives. They can work longer. Oftentimes they want to work longer! Retirement is not permanent either. I know lots of old folks who;ve retired for a few years, then gone back to work!

Well that's great for them, but again, there are a lot of jobs where people can't do that.

Half of my family is in construction. Now that my cousins are nearing retirement age, they struggle every day to make it. They would retire if they could, but they have no choice but to kill themselves. All of them have undergone several surgeries just to keep working.

As for myself, it doesn't happen very often, but at times, I have to deliver to a place that has no docks. The company refuses to send their workers out to unload the truck, so I have to unload an entire tractor-trailer by myself with a pallet jack. That was fine 30 years ago when I was young and muscular, but today, that's a different story.

Yes, we are living longer, but ask yourself: how many of your family members would be alive today if we had no medical technology? Probably none of us if you're past the age of 45. Just because our doctors and surgeons can fix you up doesn't mean you are as good as new. Trust me, I wish that were the case.

I know all too well what happens to aging blue collar workers. Some people simply can't do the job after a certain age. Those folks need to look at changing roles in the construction industry. Move into Estimating, Sales, Safety, Project management, etc...There are lots of moving parts in the construction industry.

Who better to estimate a job than a guy who's actually done the labor? Who better to set up a safety program than a guy who's been working in the field for 30 years? Who better to manage a project than someone with years of experience on the job?

Life is hard, there are no guarantees.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security is cheap when you consider that something like 62% of the people who draw it are completely dependent upon it. The system also only needs fine tuning much like what Reagan did and until someone comes up with a proven workable model to replace it, it's all we have taking care of millions of seniors. Yes to the last part, it should have a Gore lock box which after all these years isn't so funny anymore.

The percentage that rely upon SS benefits for 90% of their income is 35%. 64% rely upon it for at least half or their income.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

I agree that we need to change the program to save it. We can remove the cap on income and the program is solid for another 30 years or more. Add in a phased in gradual increase of retirement age and it can easily be stabilized for a lot longer.

Okay, so all those people (most blue collar workers) that can't make it until the age of 70 will then be on SS disability. Where is the benefit?

We can easily change the early retirement age (with reduced benefits) to 64 or 65. with full retirement age at 70 over a period of 25 years. It won't be an abrupt change for anyone.

The reality is people are living longer, healthier lives. They can work longer. Oftentimes they want to work longer! Retirement is not permanent either. I know lots of old folks who;ve retired for a few years, then gone back to work!

Well that's great for them, but again, there are a lot of jobs where people can't do that.

Half of my family is in construction. Now that my cousins are nearing retirement age, they struggle every day to make it. They would retire if they could, but they have no choice but to kill themselves. All of them have undergone several surgeries just to keep working.

As for myself, it doesn't happen very often, but at times, I have to deliver to a place that has no docks. The company refuses to send their workers out to unload the truck, so I have to unload an entire tractor-trailer by myself with a pallet jack. That was fine 30 years ago when I was young and muscular, but today, that's a different story.

Yes, we are living longer, but ask yourself: how many of your family members would be alive today if we had no medical technology? Probably none of us if you're past the age of 45. Just because our doctors and surgeons can fix you up doesn't mean you are as good as new. Trust me, I wish that were the case.

I know all too well what happens to aging blue collar workers. Some people simply can't do the job after a certain age. Those folks need to look at changing roles in the construction industry. Move into Estimating, Sales, Safety, Project management, etc...There are lots of moving parts in the construction industry.

Who better to estimate a job than a guy who's actually done the labor? Who better to set up a safety program than a guy who's been working in the field for 30 years? Who better to manage a project than someone with years of experience on the job?

Life is hard, there are no guarantees.

My family mostly worked for themselves. When you think about the amount of people in construction, there simply aren't enough of those hands-off jobs to go around. If there were, they wouldn't have waited until they could no longer work to take those jobs. They would have taken them the first chance they had.

As for construction people that work for companies, their employer handles estimating, sales, safety and management. It's a one person job actually.

That's besides the fact many people in construction don't have an advanced education to take on white collar jobs. That's why they chose construction.