Two points to consider

[asaratis]

These are representative of the double standard used to justify each. Obama's latest double standard is evidenced in his recent defending of his release of enemy combatants from GTMO because of the COST. This is definitely laughable coming from a man that has overseen the accumulation of more national debt than ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS (combined) SINCE DAY ONE!

 

[Davros]

All gun owners are not judged by the few lunatics. Nobody's taking away your gun if you're law abiding.

Welfare could be cut off today if there were the political will. Social Security is part of the debt that must be paid. Social Security Spending alone will be over 1 trillion per year by 2025. That all by itself will make it difficult to run a balanced budget ... add in Medicare and debt interest, and then you see how much we're in the red.

Social Security spending therefore is a much bigger deal than welfare spending. Something should be done.

As of today, receipts into SS are greater then expenditures. The asset of the SS administration have increased every year for what I remember as the last 20 years. RIGHT now the only reason SS adds to the debt is that the treasury has to sell securities for the SS receipts. This is a problem in that the interest paid, which is pretty small now, adds to the deficiet.

That said, SS is paying for itself it would just be better if it ran a little closer to expenditures and didn't have so much in assets. That is why investing it in the stock market was an excellent idea, too bad the democrats were so short sighted.

As for welfare, that is a direct drain on the budget.

Government shouldn't have loaned money to itself to build the trust fund. That means that all the trust fund is is debt. Government should have invested the funds into something else, like the stock market. But by the time Bush proposed allowing payroll tax to instead be invested in stocks it was far too late as the Ponzi scheme was too big and that would have caused it to collapse.

In short, social security is a mess because of the overall debt, and so something unfair to somebody will likely have to be done within a few decades at the earliest.

 

[Freewill]

All gun owners are not judged by the few lunatics. Nobody's taking away your gun if you're law abiding.

Welfare could be cut off today if there were the political will. Social Security is part of the debt that must be paid. Social Security Spending alone will be over 1 trillion per year by 2025. That all by itself will make it difficult to run a balanced budget ... add in Medicare and debt interest, and then you see how much we're in the red.

Social Security spending therefore is a much bigger deal than welfare spending. Something should be done.

As of today, receipts into SS are greater then expenditures. The asset of the SS administration have increased every year for what I remember as the last 20 years. RIGHT now the only reason SS adds to the debt is that the treasury has to sell securities for the SS receipts. This is a problem in that the interest paid, which is pretty small now, adds to the deficiet.

That said, SS is paying for itself it would just be better if it ran a little closer to expenditures and didn't have so much in assets. That is why investing it in the stock market was an excellent idea, too bad the democrats were so short sighted.

As for welfare, that is a direct drain on the budget.

Government shouldn't have loaned money to itself to build the trust fund. That means that all the trust fund is is debt. Government should have invested the funds into something else, like the stock market. But by the time Bush proposed allowing payroll tax to instead be invested in stocks it was far too late as the Ponzi scheme was too big and that would have caused it to collapse.

In short, social security is a mess because of the overall debt, and so something unfair to somebody will likely have to be done within a few decades at the earliest.

Something to worry about, what is the difference between the debt that the SS trust fund holds and the debt that the Chinese hold?

It is never too late to correct a problem. The real problem is convincing the democrats that it is a problem and what to do about it. At least that is my opinion.

 

[Montrovant]

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All gun owners are not judged by the few lunatics. Nobody's taking away your gun if you're law abiding.

Welfare could be cut off today if there were the political will. Social Security is part of the debt that must be paid. Social Security Spending alone will be over 1 trillion per year by 2025. That all by itself will make it difficult to run a balanced budget ... add in Medicare and debt interest, and then you see how much we're in the red.

Social Security spending therefore is a much bigger deal than welfare spending. Something should be done.

The ONLY reasonable thing to do in order to keep Social Security afloat is raising the age of eligibility.

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Yep, and it's always the people in dress shirts and suits that say that.

For many of us blue-collar workers, we'll be lucky to make it to 65. Vigorous work takes a toll on the body and many jobs require a sharp mind for safety reasons.

Sure, if all you do is sit behind a desk all day long, working until 75 might not be that big of a deal. But if you empty garbage cans for a living, worked your life as a roofer climbing up and down ladders carrying heavy bundles of roof shingles, mixing cement for the bricklayers, you're not going to be able to do that kind of work when you get older.

 

[leftwinger]

Can you stand at a door and check receipts at Walmart? If you can walk you can push in shopping carts! Quit crying and get back to work to age 75. You got to pay for those who NEVER worked to have 10 kids from 9 different fathers. Whats' that? you already paid in for 50 years? $500K? too bad. You can't have it. You can't live on $9/hr part-time at age 68? too bad. You should have saved more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

This is true which is why they should have increased the employee deductions all these years. Instead, they kept it the same fearing the public would reject the SS program and want the money to do their own private investments.

It's the same thing that's happening to Medicare. Look......if you want Medicare and Social Security, you have to fund it; simple as that. Telling people they must work beyond their ability to work is no solution at all. It's starting a new problem.

 

[francoHFW]

!. Total BS- Over 80% want background checks to stop nuts and criminals from getting assault rifles and handguns.. NRA/Pub insanity, dupe.
2. Stop starting corrupt World Depressions, shyttehead hater dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

This is true which is why they should have increased the employee deductions all these years. Instead, they kept it the same fearing the public would reject the SS program and want the money to do their own private investments.

It's the same thing that's happening to Medicare. Look......if you want Medicare and Social Security, you have to fund it; simple as that. Telling people they must work beyond their ability to work is no solution at all. It's starting a new problem.

So stop voting for a-holes that will do that.

 

[Montrovant]

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

 

[francoHFW]

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

^^ Perfect dupe of greedy idiot Pub billionaires. We'll see how you feel when you're 60.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

So what are employers supposed to do then, let an employee come to work and read the paper all day? Of course not. They would lay that employee off. And then with no SS, all they would have is a temporary income on unemployment and then out into the streets.

It's not our fault we were promised something that might be hard to accomplish right now. Had we taken action earlier, we could have eliminated SS and allow people to invest that money into the private market where they could possibly retire before the age of 65.

But we are stuck now, and there are many blue-collar jobs that can't keep people there until the age of 72. My industry is only one of many. I have two cousins that are remodelers. Both are struggling to make it to 65 now.

 

[Arianrhod]

I did post this thread thinking that the two points were valid for serious discussion.

Then post something serious.

 

[leftwinger]

Both are great topics. Topic #2 should be used by Presidential candidates. I would think baby boomer voters would be interested. Good thread. So much there........it could explode into many.

 

[leftwinger]

Maybe "they" want to judge all gun owners by actions of a few because:

As long as any "redneck" has a gun they can't control them? They want total GOVT control?

 

[Montrovant]

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

So what are employers supposed to do then, let an employee come to work and read the paper all day? Of course not. They would lay that employee off. And then with no SS, all they would have is a temporary income on unemployment and then out into the streets.

It's not our fault we were promised something that might be hard to accomplish right now. Had we taken action earlier, we could have eliminated SS and allow people to invest that money into the private market where they could possibly retire before the age of 65.

But we are stuck now, and there are many blue-collar jobs that can't keep people there until the age of 72. My industry is only one of many. I have two cousins that are remodelers. Both are struggling to make it to 65 now.

Again, what do you think should happen then? Should SS not have the retirement age ever increase?

I didn't say that any age increase would have to happen right at this moment. It could begin only for those who haven't paid into the system yet. However, if people are living longer after retirement age, some sort of adjustment seems prudent.

 

[Montrovant]

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

^^ Perfect dupe of greedy idiot Pub billionaires. We'll see how you feel when you're 60.

Greedy idiot Pub billionaires convinced me that people live longer now than when SS was first passed?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So it IS wrong to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. No shit. How many times have we had to tell you that before it finally sunk in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

^^ Perfect dupe of greedy idiot Pub billionaires. We'll see how you feel when you're 60.

Greedy idiot Pub billionaires convinced me that people live longer now than when SS was first passed?

SS needs to be actuarially rational. End of story.