home

Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 04:13:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

After a long, hard day at work, the last thing I needed to see when I got home was that Senate Republicans are proposing raising the retirement age for social security eligibility to 69 from the current 65 1/2. Do we have to work ourselves into the grave to collect our money? Maybe if we didn't have a President who lied to us and led us into an unnecessary war at a cost of untold billions, the U.S. would be able to honor its obligation to its own citizens.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Rumsfeld: Gitmo Will Operate for Years to Come >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 | 44 comments (44 topical)
    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Raising the retirement age is really an obvious thing to do as people live longer and thus draw more SS benefits after retirement if the retirement age stays the same. And isn't SS supposed to be primarily a safety net for those who can't take care of themselves? People aren't just longer-lived these days, they're healthier, and thus better able to take care of themselves. If they can't, they can qualify for disability, and I don't think the GOP has suggested changing those rules. Let's say that medicine makes some great advance that lets people live to be 200, on average, and be basically healthy for the bulk of that time. Would you keep the retirement age the same? Obviously 200 is a gross exageration, but it's the same basic idea as what really happens. If you'd like to retire earlier than the SS minimum, work hard and live thrifty. Yes, I know that's not enough to ensure enough savings for hard-luck cases, but it would be enough for most people.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    From the post:
    at a cost of untold billions, the U.S. would be able to honor its obligation to its own citizens.
    The problem with this is that it assumes that the Congress would be willing to raid the general fund and transfer money from it to social security. I see nothing that says that they would do that. I also see nothing that says they could do that without passing a law.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    I was going to write a long diatribe about how my elderly parents have suffered because of these kinds of priorities - but the overwhelming number of right wing posters here aren't worth the effort. Those of you who agree with this disgrace are simply disgusting.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    ...the overwhelming number of right wing posters...
    2? Come on, pipe up. My parents aren't even retired yet, and my grandparents are/were at extremes of the economic spectrum, so I for one would like to hear your concrete examples.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joe Bob on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Raising the retirement age doesn't appear that obvious to me. Sure, there are plenty of people in professions where they can keep working well into their 60s and 70s if they so chose. On the other hand, there are a great many people in physically demanding jobs who have a lesser ability to keep working as they age. I honestly don't see a lot of roofers, long-haul truckers or pipefitters having the ability to stick with it until age 69 no matter how long-lived and healthy they are. Working until that age sounds like something an egghead who never labored for a living came up with. Aside from that, I have some serious questions about how the job market would deal with people staying in the work force until 69. Frankly, where the hell are they going to work? Who is going to hire the 65-year-old roofer looking for a second career when he can't practice his trade anymore? Surely Wal-Mart doesn't need that many greeters.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#6)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    I'm such a lucky ducky that my son's so disabled he's getting disability payments now. Thanks, everybody, for giving him a chance. And thanks for having survivor's benefits that allowed me to finish my college so I could get a high-skill job and pay my taxes too. ...this administration has severely shaken my faith in the credit of the United States.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    This Republican "rationale" is kinda deceptive. If one is lucky enough to have comprehensive healthcare throughout one's working life, then one might be healthy enough to continue working until age 69. My father and mother-in-law did not. He is dead, at age 71, of "Mother-in-law survives only because the real estate market gave their doubly mortgaged house some value even in a midwestern market. Their retirement was Social Security. That's it. More Republican "thought" to punish those who aren't 'blessed by God' to make enough money, to have the right jobs that have 401Ks, health care, etc.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Roy, Raise the taxable income threshold from $90,000. duh.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Is it so impossible to understand that the costs of a program go up vastly the longer people live(longer than they did at the inception of the program). no solution, only complaints, offered here.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#10)
    by mpower1952 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Joe Bob: Working until that age sounds like something an egghead who never labored for a living came up with. Actually I think it's really a idiot president who never worked a day in his life and got bailed out of all his failing business ventures by his daddy's friends.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#11)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Uh-oh. Time to re-synch the talking points. Wasn't it just a little while back that the prexy was telling black folks how unfair the SS system is because they have shorter life expectancies than white folks? Now if we raise the retirement age, doesn't that make the system even more tilted against black retirees than before?

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Solution: repeal the tax cuts for the rich and make them pay into social security. I'm childless but my taxes go for schools, I understand why, it is in everyone's interest to have an educated populace. It is also in everyone's interest, and just plain human decency, to not push the old onto ice flows.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Brave - Hate to pop your hate bubble, but I believe raising the age from 65 to 67 was done by a Democratic Adminstration. It is in place. Here's how it works. If you were born in '38 you had to be 65 plus two months. It increases slowly, based on later birth dates, until it hits age 67. This is for the MAXIMUM benefit you can draw, based on THE AMOUNT YOU PAID IN. You can start drawing less three years early. i.e. Currently 62 and a half. Consult an accountant and they can tell you if your should, or should not, start drawing early. If you do draw early, and continue working, benefits are reduced. If you wait to draw the max, then benefits are not reduced. Che - SS payments are based how much you paid in. So when more is paid in, more is paid out. So there is no change. The problem still exists. That is unless you want to change the formula, in which case it becomes a welfare program. Sailor - see above. As for the tax cuts, these have nothing to do with Social Security. Don't you know that? Joe Bob - Or salesmen and IT people... Companies won't admit it, but they want these people out of the active work force because of healthcare costs. Single payer health insurance would fix that problem.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Sixty-nine? Why stop there? Why not 100? Why not never? That's the ultimate goal is'nt it? Cheap labor for life, no health care, in debt for life, no social security; and then you die. I'm waiting for them to propose building little shacks for workers to live in near clusters of sweatshops and agri-businesses.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    PPJ and I are on the same wavelength tonight. I apologize for any redundancy. Those who didn't believe my unsupported point about people being able to work longer might like to read Can Americans Work Longer?" (spoiler alert: yes, we can) The same article says that only 7.5% of American workers are in physically demanding jobs (as of 1996). That's not the same as measuring jobs people can do at age 69, but it's similar. Since SS is mandatory for pretty much everybody, I don't think it should let 7.5% override the interests of 92.5%.
    Working until that age sounds like something an egghead who never labored for a living came up with.
    Congress passed a law to raise the age in 1983, scheduled to take effect in 2022. It was proposed by Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL). He was crooked, but it's not clear to me if he was an egghead. Reagan was President at the time, so let's spread the blame around.
    Solution: repeal the tax cuts for the rich and make them pay into social security.
    They already pay in, of course. Do you just want to force the wealthy to give money to the unwealthy.? That's fine, it meets the goal at hand of keeping SS solvent, but you should admit that it's welfare for the elderly rather than an insurance plan.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Whoops, broken link. The law was HR 1900, 98th Congress.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#17)
    by Joe Bob on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Actually, I think the Bush tax cuts have a lot to do with the future solvency of SS; insofar as the Bush tax cuts exacerbated the Bush deficit. Has everyone forgotten the "lockbox" already? The plan was to use surplus revenues to pay down the national debt, thereby reducing our future obligations. Then there would be more general revenue free for the day when the SS trust fund no longer pays 100% of its outlays. A smaller national debt is a good thing, right? Especially when the People's Bank of China is holding all the papers? Meanwhile, regardless of what you think of private accounts or anything else, what has the Bush administration done to improve the solvency of SS, much less the government as a whole? Nothing. Personally, I agree with raising the income cap. While you're at it, raise the payouts accordingly so that upper-income people have a reason to stay with the system. As an aside, SS will continue to be crucial insurance against outliving your assets. Otherwise, you will need to hit the trifecta to avoid adversity in old age. If you don't have long-term care insurance, retire in a bull market, and buy a good annuity you are going to be hosed if you live to be 90 or 100.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Joe Bob writes
    While you're at it, raise the payouts accordingly so that upper-income people have a reason to stay with the system.
    Uh, Joe. You don't have a choice. It is the law.
    The plan was to use surplus revenues to pay down the national debt, thereby reducing our future obligations. Then there would be more general revenue free for the day when the SS trust fund no longer pays 100% of its outlays.
    You know, I do not remember anything like that. It would have required existing law to be changed, which could have been done at that time. That it wasn't speaks volumes as to the intent of the people imvolved. Which, BTW, was done by Lyndon Johnson to fund the Great Society. (He's the Pres who moved SS into the General Fund.)
    what has the Bush administration done to improve the solvency of SS, much less the government as a whole? Nothing.
    Hmmmm. You do understand, don't you, that we are having a debate about this very subject. And Bush is the one who has raised the issue and presented a plan.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#19)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    They need to give back the SS surplus that they stole.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Someone could invest just $500,000 and earn a risk free interest return of $24,000 income annually - that's without working and assuming only annual compounding of interest. At $650K, its $31K - or the equivalent of your average working public school teacher carrying $50K in student debt. The median income of the entire United States is ~$31K annually according to the 2000 Census. How much do you want to bet that the wealthy are earning more than 4.8% interest on a 5-year T-Note? There exists a purposefully intended siege upon the middle class through multiple concurrent government and private sources - predatory lending, outsourcing, regressive taxation, oppresive healthcare costs, unnecessary insurance legal requirements, unethical property taxation practices/zoning efforts bent to the advantage of the wealthy, declining retirement benefits, etc. The average American has little or no net worth. I'll stipulate that some of that is bad materialist values, but forces work to ensure that the table remains skewed towards the entitled. The forces in this nation that created the middle class are being eaten away at from all sides as we move to a complete service based global corporatist economy. A simple adjustment to a regressive payroll tax could eliminate the problem. So could foregoing a handful of Iraqs. There exists no crisis. This, like the bankruptcy bill, is a payback to the wealthy by the party of Corporatism. After a point, your wealth position places you in a position far and away above those in your surrounding community - in terms of security and access. You can continue to be an entitled sociopath and whine about giving back to society or you can shut up, pay your taxes, and still sit on your fat lazy ass while the rest of us toil to provide your goods, services, and interest income opportunities. Hide behind your deep "principles" of "individual freedom" if you wish - the wealthy didn't get rich in an Adam Smith idealistic vacuum - they did so/maintained it in a stacked system.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#21)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    I am 58 years old, paid taxs for 41 years into that system, my brother who works outside the US Has also paid immense amounts of money into that system, he makes 20 times per year what i make, he was also in the Army and did his time for this country, now its 69, why not just up it to 110 years old that will take care of "doing the people once and for all", but remember its all about the dismantling of this nation for a few evil pigs who want you dead, before your time. "Oh yes", 69 is about what THIS GOVERNMENT IS.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#22)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Oh yes! where do you think that Rat Bush is getting the money to fight this war, if you said SS, You got it right, and remember bush said the war would cost only 1.7 billion, do you remember that one? and the move to up the age of ss is only away to get the 100 billion he will need over the next 2 years in iraq. and it works right into the dismantling plan bush has with fox and business, evil is evil.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#23)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    The whole "why not make it 100" "why not make it 110" "argument" is weak. It would apply equally well to criticizing the choice to make it 65 (or was it 62.5?) when SS was first developed. FDR may as well have made it 100! Bottom line, if predictions hold and SS eventually pays out more than it takes in, then something will change that makes somebody unhappy. Congress will have to either cut benefits or increase taxation. Or we run a defecit and continue the tradition of recursively making the next generation worry about paying for SS. (To save liberals' breath, I'll say Good Job to Clinton for balancing the budget, and You Suck to Bush for returning to defecit spending)

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#24)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    Fred - No. It is now 65 and a half, and will rise towards 67, unless the law is changed, which may, or may not happen. Of course the Demos could fillibuster the change, but don't hold your breath. In the meantime, you may start drawing reduced benefits three years prior to the age you can draw the max. See an accountant. TS - You could buy a $500,000 annuity on a 20 year certain pay basis and you will do a lot better than $24,000. I would guess somewhere around $45,000. See an annuity sales person. aw - Well, you'll have to go back to 1964 to total up the bill. Have at it.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    When SS was created the average life span was 59 years old. If you chart out the increase in life span over the last 60 years it seems only natural to me that the retirement age needs to increase, people are living considerably longer than at its inception, so isn't a change a natural evolution of the system?

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    Working until that age sounds like something an egghead who never labored for a living came up with.
    Amen Joe Bob...Amen. Not to worry though, as our trade deficit w/ China has reached 160 billion (Thank you WalMart & Bill Clinton), pretty soon we won't manufacture anything in the US. Apparently, the Walmart mafia can sleep at night paying workers 50 cents an hour, and putting whole US towns out of work. The former machine operators and such can easily stock shelves at Walmart till 70, if they live that long without health benefits. They won't stop till the large, prosperous Middle Class created in the 1950's is eradicated, replaced by wage slaves with no benefits.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    Prospering together (rich, middle, and lower) for the good of the nation, sharing the spolis, it isn't acceptable to the rich....they want it all.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    much whining/no solutions/no response to the proposition that the retirement age was higher than the average life span at the time of creation of sacred program.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    The retirement age should be lowered to age 25 and everybody could recieve benefits while they work for the next 35 years. One thing about Social Security, from what I have seen and experienced, Republicans make damn sure that they are right there collecting as much as they can and as early an age as possible. Didn't FDR's administration come up with the idea of Social Security? A Democrat? One of those Socialists, those Communist bastards that has no time for capitalism? Funny how Republicans belly up to any trough, as long as it pays. It's easy to be a hypocrite, especially when it comes to money.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    There has been a complete statistical inversion of those qualified to collect versus payout in the last 60 years. Our quality of life is significantly greater than 60 years ago hence people are living longer and are healthier at 65 than they were 60 years ago. Go back and do the math, it is simple to see that the reason for the deficit gap is solely predicated on the increase in life expectancy. A raise in the age is necessary if the intent is to maintain consistency with the anticipated payouts at its inception. (of course at its inception it was estimated that very few people would be alive to collect but over the years esp in the 50's, there was a symmetrical balance to the payouts.)

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    Here's what you have to do regarding SS. You have to take care of yourself, don't rely on Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. Make sure your home is completely paid for by age 60; make sure you have no debt at age 60; make your kids pay for their own college educations; jettison all unnecessary bells and whistles in your life. Then retire @ the youngest age possible--you'll get by just fine, even if you have to pay for your own health insurance. BTW the biggest problem is going to be Medicare not SS, so be prepared to provide your own health insurance for the rest of your life.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    So here's what you do; make sure you got rich parents and perfect health and lot of good luck.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#33)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    Che- “Raise the taxable income threshold from $90,000.” The largest tax increase in the history of our country; right, that’ll happen. I think we have a better chance of seeing American packed Studebakers washing up on Cuban beaches. TS- “Those of you who agree with this disgrace are simply disgusting.” I hardly think it enough. Your elderly parents were part of the voting block that extracted an untenable social package financed on the backs of future laborers. You can proselytize about the social contract or social justice but the immutable fact remains that folks are not going to fund the retirement (and healthcare) of strangers to the tune of 30-50% income tax rates. Have you been watching the social programs of European countries crumble under the weight of double-digit unemployment and stagnant economies? Anyway, I can hardly bring myself to sympathize. If the program is unchanged paying scheduled benefits, and assuming I make it to retirement age, I and all of my generation save the poorest will reap negative gains on our SS contributions; and this while today’s elderly, those who broadened SS, will all reap positive gains. It is a loosing proposition no matter how hard you pluck those heartstrings. My generation only need look past the poor retirees of today to our own retirement crippled by unprecedented income tax rates. You trade today’s poor for tomorrow’s. Sailor- “ … I understand why, it is in everyone's interest to have an educated populace.” You have it exactly backward. Kids are not some inevitability that we all must fortify the public infrastructure against. My wife and I have managed 8 years without them; there’s no big trick. They are a choice folks make, responsible or not. Personal choice and personal consequence reciprocate; personal choices resulting in public responsibility is asinine.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#34)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Saw an interesting argument today: If it weren't for abortion, there'd be, what, thirty million more workers to support the geezers. You can do the spoiled brat bit all you want, but when there are two workers supporting one retiree, it just won't work, no matter what you do at the margins.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Jlvngstn, please check your statistical assumptions. The difference is that infant mortality was so much higher then, especially amongst poor and (redundant alert) minorities. The infants never paid in and never took out of SS. When you factor in the people who lived past that age the average life expectancy is much higher than 59. pw, whether you choose to have children, don't have children or can't have children, it is still in everyone's best interest to see that they have the best tools possible to survive in the world we leave them. I certainly applaud your decision, and I wish everyone with your point of view made the same decision. But libertarianism is not an excuse for selfishness. To screw the future of the planet and the folks living on it, and that is exactly what you are advocating, is just so egocentric it's unbeleiveable. The freedom and lifestyle you enjoy now was made by those who came before you and sacrificed their lives for. If you can't think of the future, think of what you owe to the past

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Sailor. Excellent, excellent point about the effect of infant and child mortality on the average life expectancy. The question for SS in the Thirties was the average life expectancy of somebody who worked--those being the only ones who could draw--to age sixty-five. Secondarily, those who worked and paid in but did not live to retire were a (useful) factor. I don't have my manual at home, but I don't think the survivors' benefits were part of the initial package.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Except, nearly all of my relatives are Conservatives...

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#38)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    RA, And there are 30 million jobs for them? Besides, as Sailor points out, the infant mortality rate has decreased so the overall ratio has been helped. But stripping a woman of control of her body for more "Beta's" is not any kind of rational proposal.If indeed that is the gist of your comment.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Sailor, I posted the "statistical assumptions" a few months ago in this blog, you are welcome to look it up. Factoring in infant mortality and examining the life expectancy increase over 60 years in contrast with the payout increase over the same period, there is a gross disparity in distribution. People are living on average 14 years longer than they were 60 years ago and the quality of life is better than it was 60 years ago. SS was designed to provide assistance in the last few years of one's life, not the last decades. I don't like the thought of raising the age, but based on the tenets of its roots it seems like it would have been consistent the wishes of the founders.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    PPJ -- Yes, I know about the Dem raises on SS ages. My father in law actually took an early SSN. It was their only retirement because mother in law never worked outside the home. I *hate* that this country refuses to provide a decent minimum retirement for its citizens. The US was one of the last western countries to implement social security and then it was designed for women and children. I *hate* the implications of the latest Republican rationale for putting more money in their own pockets and less in those the people who need it. I find the Republican tactics especially anti-citizen and pro-death. This age raise essentially sentences some people who aren't rich and blessed with good health to early deaths.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Life expectancy chart http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#42)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    Che. Interesting allusion. Do you suggest the wombs in which the aborted were conceived were uniformly saturated with Soma (it's been a long time)to produce Betas? I make no point about the issue of abortion, only that it contributed significantly to the shortage of workers per retiree. If you can figure out a way to solve this Ponzi scheme without more workers, go ahead. But the original thought was to have far more workers per retiree than we do now. Jobs? If they consume, somebody will have to make and sell what they consume. And of the thirty million, one or two of them may have had a good idea. It's what the lefties always say about troops dead in combat--one of them might have found the cure for cancer--so I figure the same applies to the aborted. Neither are here, and they might have been. Can't be entirely consequence-free, now, can it? That you don't like the implications of the consequence doesn't mean the consequence is nonexistent, except in leftyland.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    Life Expectancy. Life expectancy at age sixty-five has risen by four years for men and five years for women since 1940, and is expected to continue rising. Increasing life expectancy raises the value of Social Security benefits to workers, because benefits last as long as the recipient is alive. By the same token, however, improving life expectancy raises Social Security's cost, because beneficiaries then collect benefits over a longer period.

    Re: Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    Last post from the Brookings Inst. website: https://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb126.htm

    Republicans Propose Retirement Age of 69 | 44 comments (44 topical)