Washington Wants 69

Sonny Clark

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
51,089
Reaction score
5,910
Points
1,870
Location
Gadsden Alabama
[ I wrote this piece on 6/15/2005 ( almost 10 years ago ) when this issue was being considered in Washington. During the past 2 years this issues has been kicked around again by some in Washington. I hope it never becomes reality. ]


WASHINGTON WANTS 69


Senior citizens might get the Washington shaft soon. Our representatives would like to raise the retirement age from 65 ½ to 69. This makes about as much sense as lowering the age of accountability from 18 down to 10. What can they be thinking? It’s hard enough for seniors to survive in the work place under present conditions. Fewer workers are building up retirement funds and personal savings. Does this mean that a person would be out looking for work at age 68 if they were to get laid-off, or fired? Our economy doesn’t have enough good paying jobs for those of us between the ages of 18 and 60, much less those over the age of 60. It’s very difficult to remain employed until one reaches the age of 65 at the present time. And Congress wants to withhold social security payments until we reach 69?


When a civilized society punishes longevity, turns its’ back on the elderly, and promotes poverty, it’s hit rock bottom. Does this mean that sons and daughters will be taking care of parents? Does this mean Washington considers the elderly “dead wood” in society? Of all the fixes and solutions to the problems concerning the social security fund, this remedy is the worst. The many contributions our senior citizens have made to society through the years can’t be measured in dollars and cents. Our elderly are truly a national treasure and should be given the respect and consideration they have earned over the years.


If this legislation were to pass, 69 being the retirement age to draw full benefits, it’ll cost the taxpayers $billions. These senior citizens will still need medical care, shelter, food, clothing, and prescription medicines. Even the small amount seniors get now helps pay some of these costs. I’m sure there’s more urgent matters our representatives could consider and debate besides penalizing senior citizens. Have we stooped so low as to make life harder for those less able to fend for themselves? Will the next class of the homeless be between the ages of 65 and 69?
 

onefour1

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
192
Points
130
They are hoping you die before you get your fair share of social security so they can steal all that money.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,814
Reaction score
9,696
Points
2,030
It should be at least 75

When SS. was started only like 5% Lived to 65 years old. S.S. Was never designed to pay out everyone who put in. We are living way longer , so common sense tells us we have to raise it

Other wise it will go broke
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Social Security can be sustained with small adjustments. The only problem with Social Security is that the politicians won't make the small adjustments,

because they will not be popular even when they're small,

and thus the politicians will wait until there's another 1983 style crisis, and then they'll make large adjustments.
 

Politico

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
13,855
Reaction score
942
Points
175
They are hoping you die before you get your fair share of social security so they can steal all that money.
That. And God help you if you paid in and become disabled.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,814
Reaction score
9,696
Points
2,030
I'd wear a pink helmet just to piss him off
Social Security can be sustained with small adjustments. The only problem with Social Security is that the politicians won't make the small adjustments,

because they will not be popular even when they're small,

and thus the politicians will wait until there's another 1983 style crisis, and then they'll make large adjustments.
You know NY I dont remember what happened in 83 with S.S., what small adjustments do you suggest? Being serious, just curious. I dont even know why the democrats and Republicans decided to tax it.
What the hell is the moral point of taxing money, That you forced them and their Employers to give to the Government for 42 years interest free and then tax it when you give it back to the worker for retirement?
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,814
Reaction score
9,696
Points
2,030
All the government is doing is using the money and taxing it, if people are lucky enough to live long enough to collect it back.

That sounds ridiculous. What a scam

But it is kind of funny with all the advancements in modern medicine, the joke is on the government. Lol
 

FJO

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
9,483
Reaction score
1,245
Points
275
Location
Just North of the 49th
Age 65 was set for retirement over a century ago, when there was no hope that more than one percent survive to that age and collect pension.

Today, people are healthy, working, live far past that artificial and obsolete limitation.

I retired at 64 from a job I loved, was very good at, and would have loved to keep, only because the boss I had to report to was an insufferable jerk. After I retired people in the Head Office ask me to work on contract, but sorry, once I retired I retired.

Bottom line is that with all the advances in sciences, life styles, medicine, nutrition, personal comforts, etc., 65 is a totally unrealistic age to be removed from the productive work force, and a 100% certain way to the destruction and depletion of the funds that pay out while taking decreasing amounts in.

69 is a number that sounds reasonable. Lot of young people are already enjoying 69.
 
OP
Sonny Clark

Sonny Clark

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
51,089
Reaction score
5,910
Points
1,870
Location
Gadsden Alabama
Age 65 was set for retirement over a century ago, when there was no hope that more than one percent survive to that age and collect pension.

Today, people are healthy, working, live far past that artificial and obsolete limitation.

I retired at 64 from a job I loved, was very good at, and would have loved to keep, only because the boss I had to report to was an insufferable jerk. After I retired people in the Head Office ask me to work on contract, but sorry, once I retired I retired.

Bottom line is that with all the advances in sciences, life styles, medicine, nutrition, personal comforts, etc., 65 is a totally unrealistic age to be removed from the productive work force, and a 100% certain way to the destruction and depletion of the funds that pay out while taking decreasing amounts in.

69 is a number that sounds reasonable. Lot of young people are already enjoying 69.
Have you considered the sad shameful economy? Have you considered health issues? Have you considered employers producing more with less employees? Have you considered technology, automation, and innovation replacing workers? Have you considered the tremendous competition for good jobs? Have you considered the influx of foreign workers? Have you considered the continuing off-shore out-sourcing of jobs? Have you considered the number of college grads unemployed, underemployed, and living at home with parents due to the jobs market? Have you considered the number of 50 year old and up that are presently unemployed?

Just because you were very lucky, doesn't mean that the same applies to everyone your age.
 

FJO

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
9,483
Reaction score
1,245
Points
275
Location
Just North of the 49th
Age 65 was set for retirement over a century ago, when there was no hope that more than one percent survive to that age and collect pension.

Today, people are healthy, working, live far past that artificial and obsolete limitation.

I retired at 64 from a job I loved, was very good at, and would have loved to keep, only because the boss I had to report to was an insufferable jerk. After I retired people in the Head Office ask me to work on contract, but sorry, once I retired I retired.

Bottom line is that with all the advances in sciences, life styles, medicine, nutrition, personal comforts, etc., 65 is a totally unrealistic age to be removed from the productive work force, and a 100% certain way to the destruction and depletion of the funds that pay out while taking decreasing amounts in.

69 is a number that sounds reasonable. Lot of young people are already enjoying 69.
Have you considered the sad shameful economy? Have you considered health issues? Have you considered employers producing more with less employees? Have you considered technology, automation, and innovation replacing workers? Have you considered the tremendous competition for good jobs? Have you considered the influx of foreign workers? Have you considered the continuing off-shore out-sourcing of jobs? Have you considered the number of college grads unemployed, underemployed, and living at home with parents due to the jobs market? Have you considered the number of 50 year old and up that are presently unemployed?

Just because you were very lucky, doesn't mean that the same applies to everyone your age.
Whew! What a lecture!

How can the economy be sad and shameful after six years of The Great Leader. How can health be even an issue with Obamacare. When technology advances and replaces workers, the savvy workers retrain themselves to adopt. You know, like the horse and buggy drivers who learned to drive an automobile. Competition for jobs are usually won by those who prepare themselves instead relying on government largesse or affirmative action. For your information I was one of those foreign workers close to 60 years ago. I worked in the mines, cut lumber in the middle of nowhere, sweat on factory floors until I learned and mastered English to go back to high school as an adult student and get my education to enable me to improve my life. I steadfastly refused to join unions, because even at a youthful and inexperienced age I knew that winning battles with unions will always result in losing the war, i.e. your job. Even with my broken and accented English I was able to bargain for what I earned, and was never under the illusion that I deserved something I did not earn. When I advanced to the office and taught myself computer programming (which I held for close to 30 years) I knew that I was earning less than the college graduates (who routinely came to me to proof read their reports) but had the satisfaction that what I had I earned without brass knuckled thugs pretending to speak and bargain for me. I am now happily retired, because I knew my qualifications as well as my limitations, unlike those 50 year old and up college graduates you are crying for.

Yeah, I was lucky. Very lucky. Who would not want to be a seventeen year old, alone, with no language skills land in a land and survive without government assistance and affirmative action.

I guess you vote Democrat. Have at it.
 
OP
Sonny Clark

Sonny Clark

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
51,089
Reaction score
5,910
Points
1,870
Location
Gadsden Alabama
Age 65 was set for retirement over a century ago, when there was no hope that more than one percent survive to that age and collect pension.

Today, people are healthy, working, live far past that artificial and obsolete limitation.

I retired at 64 from a job I loved, was very good at, and would have loved to keep, only because the boss I had to report to was an insufferable jerk. After I retired people in the Head Office ask me to work on contract, but sorry, once I retired I retired.

Bottom line is that with all the advances in sciences, life styles, medicine, nutrition, personal comforts, etc., 65 is a totally unrealistic age to be removed from the productive work force, and a 100% certain way to the destruction and depletion of the funds that pay out while taking decreasing amounts in.

69 is a number that sounds reasonable. Lot of young people are already enjoying 69.
Have you considered the sad shameful economy? Have you considered health issues? Have you considered employers producing more with less employees? Have you considered technology, automation, and innovation replacing workers? Have you considered the tremendous competition for good jobs? Have you considered the influx of foreign workers? Have you considered the continuing off-shore out-sourcing of jobs? Have you considered the number of college grads unemployed, underemployed, and living at home with parents due to the jobs market? Have you considered the number of 50 year old and up that are presently unemployed?

Just because you were very lucky, doesn't mean that the same applies to everyone your age.
Whew! What a lecture!

How can the economy be sad and shameful after six years of The Great Leader. How can health be even an issue with Obamacare. When technology advances and replaces workers, the savvy workers retrain themselves to adopt. You know, like the horse and buggy drivers who learned to drive an automobile. Competition for jobs are usually won by those who prepare themselves instead relying on government largesse or affirmative action. For your information I was one of those foreign workers close to 60 years ago. I worked in the mines, cut lumber in the middle of nowhere, sweat on factory floors until I learned and mastered English to go back to high school as an adult student and get my education to enable me to improve my life. I steadfastly refused to join unions, because even at a youthful and inexperienced age I knew that winning battles with unions will always result in losing the war, i.e. your job. Even with my broken and accented English I was able to bargain for what I earned, and was never under the illusion that I deserved something I did not earn. When I advanced to the office and taught myself computer programming (which I held for close to 30 years) I knew that I was earning less than the college graduates (who routinely came to me to proof read their reports) but had the satisfaction that what I had I earned without brass knuckled thugs pretending to speak and bargain for me. I am now happily retired, because I knew my qualifications as well as my limitations, unlike those 50 year old and up college graduates you are crying for.

Yeah, I was lucky. Very lucky. Who would not want to be a seventeen year old, alone, with no language skills land in a land and survive without government assistance and affirmative action.

I guess you vote Democrat. Have at it.
FYI - I have never ever voted Democrat or Republican. I'm smart enough to know better. I write-in a candidate of my choice on election day. I don't play their game. Also, again, just because you were able to make it the hard way, and get very lucky doing so, doesn't mean that everyone can follow in your footsteps. You can't judge the world by your accomplishments. Many don't have the opportunity to advance themselves. Everyone is not born with a high IQ, talented, skilled, and educated. For your information, people do have limitations. Not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, financial whiz, banker, author, successful real estate broker, etc. We have many citizens willing to work and be self-supporting, but do not have an opportunity to do so. It may be hard for you to understand that, but regardless, it's true.

Pat yourself on the back for accomplishing what you have done, but never look down your nose at those that have tried and failed. Some have exerted the same effort as you, but fell short through no fault of their own. Reality is a hard pill to swallow for some people.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top