We must alter Soc Sec, Rangel says

[Stephanie]

Yep...Never expected anything else from a Democrat....


Raising retirement age or reducing benefits can't be ruled out if the Social Security system is to be saved from going bust, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday.
"All of these things are on the table to find some way to make certain that Social Security is solvent," said Rangel, who is poised to take control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel (D-Harlem) discussed the fate of Social Security - which some have estimated will have a cash-flow problem as soon as 2017 and run out of money by 2040 - during a Manhattan breakfast talk sponsored by Crain's New York.

Any solution will cause some pain, according to Rangel. "If you call tax increases pain - and I do - that'll be a part of the mix, too," he said. "There's no easy way to do it, but it has to be done."

But the congressman also swore Social Security and Medicare health benefits would not be scrapped entirely. "If you're talking about getting rid of entitlements, forget about it," he said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/11-29-2006/news/story/475440p-399933c.html

 

[glockmail]

How 'bout just give people 40+ the option to opt out, and younger out completely, creating a required private system, eventually getting rid of the guv'mint program altogether (let it wither on the vine)?

 

[Stephanie]

Maybe they should raise the retirement age to 100yrs old...
Then they wouldn't ever have to worry about paying anything....idiots...

 

[90K]

Actually they should rise the retirement age, mostly because we are living longer to at least to 70~73. And another thing about the social security is we should have the option of managing our own funds collected. And be required to keep that money in a legitimate fund until a valid retirement age so it can't be abused by other means.

 

[Stephanie]

Actually they should rise the retirement age, mostly because we are living longer to at least to 70~73. And another thing about the social security is we should have the option of managing our own funds collected. And be required to keep that money in a legitimate fund until a valid retirement age so it can't be abused by other means.

I agree with everything you suggest.....But the Democrats will never accept that.....Then they wouldn't be able to raise more taxes for them to use on more social programs they want to push...


One good thing we can feel good about.

They will feel OUR PAIN as they raise our taxes....

 

[Mr. P]

How 'bout just give people 40+ the option to opt out, and younger out completely, creating a required private system, eventually getting rid of the guv'mint program altogether (let it wither on the vine)?

Huh? Are you NUTS! That would work of course, but would remove power from politicians that manipulate the ole folks vote with the scare tactics every 2-4 years.. 'If you vote for them, They're gonna cut or take yer SSI away!' you know that, right?

 

[t80tank]

I'm all for raising the retirement age and implementing a privatized system of social security, so we can eventually dump this big weight on our country. You know what they'll do with SS is just raise taxes on it. It's the liberal way.

 

[Avatar4321]

How 'bout just give people 40+ the option to opt out, and younger out completely, creating a required private system, eventually getting rid of the guv'mint program altogether (let it wither on the vine)?

But then the politicians couldnt spend the money they raise from social security tax and provide IOUs for the future.

Rangel is a hypocrite. Where was he when we were trying to fix it two years ago? Oh yeah he was opposing it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually they should rise the retirement age, mostly because we are living longer to at least to 70~73. And another thing about the social security is we should have the option of managing our own funds collected. And be required to keep that money in a legitimate fund until a valid retirement age so it can't be abused by other means.

That makes too much sense. Rangel opposes logical solutions.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

SS came about when the average life expectancy was 65. People often worked until they died. Now that people often live to 80, the SS age should logically go up too. Either that, or fewer benefits or higher taxes. All of these require lots of political willpower to go against the AARP, possibly the most untouchable lobby in Washington. There will be even less willpower as the ranks of the elderly swell as baby boomers retire. So, we will take the easy, stealthy way out: printing money. Err excuse me, "borrow money, and then let the banking system create mass amounts of money so that interest rates don't go up when the government soaks up such a huge pool of savings".

If I were the emperor of the united states, I would begin auctioning off government assets to pay for people who are near retirement, and cancel SS for people who aren't. You don't "privatize" a government program by letting big brother put the funds in the stock market :shudder:, you eliminate it.

 

[Rico]

Actually they should rise the retirement age, mostly because we are living longer to at least to 70~73. And another thing about the social security is we should have the option of managing our own funds collected. And be required to keep that money in a legitimate fund until a valid retirement age so it can't be abused by other means.

The last sentence is PART OF THE PROBLEM. We don't need the gov't to wet nurse us to the grave. I want NO gov't restrictions on what I do with my hard earned money...period.!!!!

 

[Gunny]

Actually they should rise the retirement age, mostly because we are living longer to at least to 70~73. And another thing about the social security is we should have the option of managing our own funds collected. And be required to keep that money in a legitimate fund until a valid retirement age so it can't be abused by other means.

I agree right up to to the last sentence. I don't need Big Brother's hand in my pocket any further than it already is. If it's my money to invest, then so be it. I could invest in the local watering hole and make 10 times as much as SS will ever pay me, but I doubt it'd ever be on the "approved" list.

 

[glockmail]

I agree right up to to the last sentence. I don't need Big Brother's hand in my pocket any further than it already is. If it's my money to invest, then so be it. I could invest in the local watering hole and make 10 times as much as SS will ever pay me, but I doubt it'd ever be on the "approved" list.

If you don't have that provision then you'll have low-lifes who spend the money on a month of drugs and gambling, and then we're back to square one with the liberals wanting to save these dorks from their own idiot selves. I don't like the guv'mint telling me what to do either but without that provision there will never be any hope of reform.