Sonny Clark
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
[ 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?
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?