We were TOLD that Social Security would be there for us

WHY NOT TAX ALL INCOME ? Talk about Crybabies...... There is an income limit on Social Security ?

WHY ? WHY not opay a FLAT 7% ... That way if the CEO of Goldman Sachs makes a $BILLION, he pays 7% on ALL his income ... If the CEO of AIG makes %100 MILLION, he SHOULD BE TAXED on ALL HIS EARNINGS .... The owners of the LA DODGERS, the McCourts made $106 MILLION over 6 years and PAID NO TAXES on their income !!! Shoud THEY PAY TAXES ???

WHAT'S THE RATIONALE For not Taxing ALL INCOME ??

Care to pony up glen ???

to be honest, i have read a few of your comments today and i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. could you rephrase your rant into something a little more coherent? then maybe i can answer any question you might have. and ps, when social security was first designed, it was not for all of us. it has since morphed into a retirement plan for all. which is fine. however, i do not like passing the buck to younger generations. we all have to feel the pain a little. the boomers who helped create most of this mess need to feel it as well.

MSierra, SF

We were TOLD that Social Security would be there for us

Just looked into the Social Security lockbox. Full of IOUs. I guess your government lied to you. You should be used to that by now. Too bad you didn't have the chance to put a portion of your SS into a private acccount that you managed yourself. At least you'd have that to depend on.

The government can change the retirement age to 70 as soon as they return every dime they took from me each and every payday with the assurance that at age 65 my monies would be there til I die to take care of me.

When, every rich person pay his/her fair share instead of reaping the benefit of untold loopholes so they do not ever pay ~ then the government can change my retirement age to 70.

When the Senators and Congressmen pay the same share the rest of us pay, then they can decide to change my retirement age!

The money would be there if Big Business was paying their fair share of the tax responsibility. We all can see those benefits are not benefiting us or there would be full employment!

Thank you Fiesty, this needs to be said.

The President is doing a very good job of telling it like it is by standing and handing right back to the GOPERs their ridiculous talking points. I sometimes wonder who are these so called Democrats on here, who hand the obstructionists some spin words, I feel the same way towards James Carville, yeah I know you wanted Hillary to win. She didn't, now get over it, get on board or jump off and join that useless bunch hypocrites sometime known as teabaggers.

Hey Red you'll might want ot check over there on the Kagan thread. Old disgusted has a few pined down over there. I tried to get 'em to come over and play with the big kids but they said that they would rather keep thier ignorance over there where everybody might not be able to see it.

Hey IR... yeah I've been peeking over there through out the day! Man oh Man they're are some ugly ignorant people residing in this country masquerading as Americans... *shakes head*

Gingerbread Mamma, weren't you the one calling for a higher level of discourse? Hilarious.

Truth be told, the retirement age probably should be raised by at least a couple of years. Something has to be done. The system is unsustainable as it is now; there are simply not enough younger workers to support the number of people who will be eligible for Social Security. This is not a problem that will correct itself, either. The fertility rate continues to decrease, and the people continue to live longer.

What would be your proposal? Sorry, but as a young worker, I don't think it would be right to raise my taxes at this point in my life to sustain Social Security. I need money to pay back the student debt that I incurred, so why should I be punished for the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress?

What suggestions do YOU have Gingerbread Mamma? You can't ignore the problem and "hope" it will go away.

Oh... that's priceless Jill!

Thanks for sharing your I got mine FU mentality! Who exactly held the gun to your head to take out those student loans?

And the I don't feel 'it's fair' comment - honey life ain't fair... seems you still have a lot of growing up to do regardless of your 'law degree'!

I've said for years that a common sense course should be a mandatory requirement in order to earn a degree - thanks again for proving me right!

Feisty,

Why should I have to pay more (I already pay a lot) than I already am to support the fiscal irresponsibility of a bunch of idiot Congresspeople? How is that an FU mentality?

You're right in that nobody held a gun to my head to take out the student loans, and guess what? I'm paying them back! I'm not trying to escape my financial responsibilities, unlike those who took out those loans they could not afford that you enjoy defending.

Feisty, dear, I know life "ain't" fair. If it was "fair", there would be a lot of things that I wouldn't have to do. Thankfully, I am pretty grown up and, unlike you, am mentally stable.

If ALL income, including proceeds from investment, were taxed instead of having a cutoff at $100k then there would NEVER be a problem with Social Security. As it is the rich get a pass when it comes to doing their share of the duty for their country. As it is, the Social Security withholding falls disproportionately upon the middle class and the poor and THAT is what makes it presently marginally unsustainable, along with Congress raiding the SS account to cover their spending. Heck, if they actually paid their percent on all of their income then the retirement age could actually be lowered back down to 60 with no problem. Considering that MOST actual working people, those that may well have to depend on SS for their retirement as their jobs do not pay enough for them to be actually be able to save for their retirements, start having health problems around 40 and increasingly are let go from their jobs due to their extra medical insurance cost and the fact that they are paid more due to their years in service, being able to retire at age 60 is still a pretty high bar. Statistically most of the populace who do physical labor for a living will be dead before age 60, meaning they have paid into the SS account but will never see any of it. The rich, with better access to good health care and an easy lifestyle are the ones who tend to live longer in this society, so they should be the ones to be paying their FULL share instead of the measly 'token' amounts that they presently pay.

If the rich paid their full share, on ALL their income, there would not be this problem of SS failing, but the Repubs have been working on making SS do just that, fail, for several decades. Time to call them out on this issue too!!

B. Honest, I think that the payroll caps should be removed and I think that the retirement age should be raised by a few years.

And, B. Honest, it is against the law to fire someone based on their age. And, if they take care of themselves (like so few people in this country actually do), they probably wouldn't have as many health problems at the age of 40.

How about putting the three trillion dollars and counting that we are currently spending on baseless wars into social security. Maybe even all the current and future pork barrel spending, how about all the lost tax revenues from the offshore tax havens, how about eliminating all corporate subsidies from failed research projects and tax breaks. Hell, if I can come up with just these ideas, why can't Boener and Congress propose something other than placing all the sacrifice at the feet of middle America. I'm sure there is a million more ideas that even I can come up with. Here is another bright idea, keep your damn lazy asses off our social security premiums. The money they took out of social security would possibly be earning something right now if they would just keep their ( Congress ) paws off it. How's that for proposals Jill?

Jill, the problem with taking care of themselves is that most don't make enough money to get the treatment they need all the time or the jobs they have make health insurance unaffordable enough to help out. Taking care of yourself goes a little farther than just saying it. If you can't afford it you don't do it, plain and simple.

K Mac, taking care of yourself does not necessitate medical treatment. I was referring to exercise, nutrition, and refraining from tobacco and alcohol use (well, at least keeping alcohol use to a moderate level....I do enjoy a glass of wine after a long day!). Nobody thinks that they should be responsible for what they put into their bodies anymore. Granted, there are medical conditions that develop that an individual has no control over....but a large majority of illness and death in this country are due to lifestyle factors. People should recognize that.

American Joe, those proposals are fine. At least you offer something besides hate and name-calling.

As far as the wars, I agree that these are baseless wars we are fighting, but Congress authorized those wars, and you can't exactly get that money back. As far as doing something that doesn't lay it at the feet of the middle class, I would support lifting the cap on payroll taxes that go into Social Security...

I can agree with you that lifestyle plays a role but circumstances that are dealt with daily like poor work environment, stress and strain from the type of job that you do, having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, you know those "other things" that affect your health. All workers don't have ideal jobs and maybe could not afford to get the higher education needed to get the great job.

Exercise, nutrition, and refraining goes a long way but there are other things to consider.

Jill, that's true, but we continue with the wars at 20b per month, and I thank you for not name calling as well. But there seems to be this attitude in washington that everything in the coffers are free game, and to hell with middle America. We've been driving down this road to often where the well being of the few far exceeds the well being of middle America and our country as a whole. We start trillion dollar wars with no concept of how were going to pay for it other than dropping it at the feet of middle America ( using SS dollars, etc. instead) . Your proposal along with other common sense approaches could actually work if someone in Washington was actually listening instead of blabbing usual talking points. Boehner and there merry gang of theives are laughing all the way to their off shore accounts while America suffers yet again. For the life of me, i can't believe we Americans put up with this s#$@.

K Mac, I don't disagree with you about other factors that contribute to health problems; all I was saying was that if Americans took a greater interest in their own bodies and altered their lifestyles in a way that contributed to longevity and good health, we would all be better off for it.

American Joe, I'm all for withdrawal from Afghanistan. When our leaderse are unable to articulate a clear goal, it is most definitely time to take our soldiers out of harm's way. The collateral benefit will be that we stop spending the money over there. Congress has certainly breached their fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of this nation, but it hasn't only been the Republicans. Most in not all of the Democrats in Congress are rich folks, too, you know.

I agree Jill, but it does appear the republicans are the one's trying to halt any additional help for out of work Americans, trying to pass on the oil spill cleanup ( Barton ) on to the American taxpayer, allowing banks to sit on their ill got gains from bailouts without helping small businesses with lending, no real regulation of Wall Street so again taxpayers will be on the hook again if they fail. I could go on and on and yes their are a few democrats willing to block these same issues, but if their were a few republicans other than NONE of them, we could actually see some real progress on some of these issues. Would'nt you agree?

American Joe, I can agree with you about the financial reform.

The extension on unemployment was only halted because Dems didn't want to have to show how they'd pay for it.

Barton is a SINGLE Republican, who, I doubt can be said to represent the ENTIRE Republican party. Although they are typically seen as "business-friendly", I don't think anyone disputes BP's role in paying for the damage they've caused.

American Joe, if people would look at these issues not from the "party perspective" and take the time to try to understand what policy arguments they're using to oppose some of these measures (and I'm not saying I agree with them), then maybe that would help fuel some cooperation as well.

I will never forget Nancy Pelosi's shameful speech on the House floor on the first stimulus vote, where she took that opportunity to blame the Republicans, and the Republicans only, for the financial mess that the country was in. If you want the parties to work together, you can't have that kind of crap going on. Yes, that goes for both sides, but the blame game HAS to stop somewhere if progress is to be made.

I would say that there has to be more than mere lip service paid to the idea of partisanship, which is all we get from either party these days.

Hey, Feisty-

Ya gotta admit...Jill's got the star!

I know how important that is to you...

Jill, I thought republicans were a little more tough skinned (than you claim them to be) to let claims of blame effect their conscience or do what is best for all Americans. Pres. Obama has watered down so many policies to get even just one republican to vote for it, but NONE ( republicans ) have, even though many in your party from day one of his presidency have verbally wished him to fail, yet it appears he is continuing to reach out (and to the detriment of any real reform). I'd at least expect the republicans to do same. We have been watching this unfold for a year and half already, republicans need to get over it and start doing the right thing.

Jill

Telling people to take care of themselves is all well and good, however, consider the extremely poor working conditions of most of those who have to do physical, sometimes repetitive, labor, taking care of your body comes in at least lower than second place if you want to keep your job, be able to pay rent, power bills and still be able to feed your family on a wage that has not actually risen against inflation in 15 years. Your boss lives rich as hell, and considers you just another piece of machinery, but one that is totally replaceable, moreso than the machines and equipment that the laborer uses to do his job. Try a job in the food industry somewhere, or be a welder or dockworker. Try the construction industry or most factory jobs where the machinery has not been replaced since the 70s since the owners are too busy with skinning the company for profits so they can have their boats and foreign vacations instead of replacing dangerous, outdated equipment. You think this does not happen? If so then you are totally deluded about Labor in this country. Unions used to be the backstop for this kind of behavior amongst the management class, but the Republican union busting has been all too successful because to make the endlessly increasing profits like they want, they have to short Somebody, and that Somebody is the worker and the Consumer who pays for overpriced products and the profit never 'trickles down'.

America is suffocating under the influence of the Way-Too-Wealthy-To-Care crowd and as far as I am concerned we HAVE to "re-distribute" that wealth, either through higher taxes on the rich or outright confiscation under the RICO laws. The plain fact of the matter is that most workers in this Nation are Wage Slaves that are unable to change their employment due to the fact that they have no choice but to live payday to payday because of low wages, are dependent on their employer provided medical and the fact that they are scared to lose their jobs in this economic climate. All of this means that the employers, who are NOT feeling the pinch anywhere as badly as the workers, have them over a barrel and can dictate what wages they will or will not pay.

This means that the workers work until they are beset by medical conditions that are brought on either by harsh physical working conditions or the stress of trying to survive on so little. This is not a myth as I have been there, did that and seen my boss complaining that he was not able to buy another new boat this year, while I was struggling to pay rent and eat enough to support me working a welding job 12 hr day, 6 days a week and 10 hrs on Sunday. You give it a go and tell me how that works for you!!!

American Joe, I don't claim the Republicans as "my party." I'm actually not a Republican; I'm an Independent (but registered as a Democrat....socially liberal, fiscally conservative, blah, blah blah). In any case, my point is that you guys keep telling the Republicans to "do the right thing" without considering that perhaps they feel that they are doing the right thing. You want the Republicans to do what the Democrats want them to do, but that's not going to happen. President Obama has not watered down any legislation to give the Republicans what they want; he was dealing with problems within his own party. Would you really expect, if the Congress was controlled by Republicans, for Democrats to just lie down and take whatever they want to dish out? Absolutely not! You would hope that our revered members of Congress would have the common sense and intelligence to sit down, debate the pros and cons of legislation, make concessions (both parties), and craft a bill that incorporates ideas from both parties, because, in reality, neither side has it entirely right.

B. Honest, I'm stunned that you would endorse confiscation of money through RICO. I don't really think that there's anything to say to that. That is as radical as they come. As far as the health issues go, as I mentioned in my response to K Mac, I recognize that there are other factors that play a role in the health of an individual, i.e., job conditions, etc. But I likewise clarified that my comments applied to those factors that are within a person's control.

President Obama has not watered down any legislation to give the Republicans what they want; he was dealing with problems within his own party.

Jill, I beg to differ on this point, and unfortunately I don't have the time to continue to show you facts where he has. But I'm sure if someone else had the time or inclination to continue an argument to those of you in denial, it would be easy. Hay, just say no to anything and offer nothing in return. That mentality seems to work for some of us on here.

Lighten up America, and first read, thanks for allowing me to post my argument! Good luck America!

Jill,

Concerning RICO: Considering that they can and do confiscate the entirety of people's money when they catch them for doing drug dealing, they consider that any and all of the money has been tainted by their illegal actions, the same standards need to be applied to those that caused the banking collapse: They used their money to leverage the CDO's and CDS's as well as all of the packaged loans that they peddled off and made huge profits off from, therefore ALL of their money should likewise be confiscated because of their fraudulent behavior. If it is fair to do that to the little criminals, it is fair to do that to the big criminals and I do not see anything "Radical" about it. Simple fairness in action is all that it would be. Why should their riches shield them from the outcome of their actions, especially when because of them they destroyed the wealth and well-being of MILLIONS of Americans, and are STILL causing damage to the economy even now? I think you need to redefine your idea of what Radical is, radical would be just legislating the confiscation or merely Ordering it through Executive Powers, using the law as intended is Not 'Radical'!

Our President has worked harder than any President in the past 30 years. There is simply no foundation for your criticism.

President Obama’s Accomplishments:

• To avoid a major economic depression, he passed the largest economic stimulus bill in American history.
• Set a fixed timetable for withdrawing US combat forces from Iraq.
• Returned science to its rightful place by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
• Signed into law CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE.
• Signed into law HEALTHCARE REFORM.
• Signed into law the Ledbetter bill insuring EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE.
• Appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court.
• Approved 1.4 billion dollars to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs.
• Approved 15 billion dollars to start small business growth.
• Lifted the ban on gays to see loved ones in hospitals. DADT passed; to be implemented in January.
• $2,500 tax credit to college students.
• FINANCE REFORM to be signed by the President by July 4, 2010.

This has been accomplished in his first 18 months. Apparently you cannot recognize leadership when you see it.

MSierra, SF said:
WHY Doesn't OBAMA hold a PRESS CONFERENCE and say: 'If you leave DEMOCRATS in control of the Congress.....We won't raise the SS age to 70'

_____________

Even better: Have ObamaPelosiReid call a press conference and announce a new Democrat bill mandating that every employer in the country immediately hire 10% more employees. POOF, no more unemployment problem!!! LOL!!!

Thank you Mr Axelrod, but even Jon Stewart wasn't fooled by that litany...and anyone with eyes to see and a mind of their own knows that this president has fallen far short of expectations.

He hasn't worked harder, or certainly better than President Clinton for one, and it's silly to imply that that other presidents haven't worked hard, even when they are working as forces of destruction like Bush. Just another cheerleader...

The health care bill is popular? Really now? Didn't the left, along with the GOP and the media, SLAM the President over this reform for like a year? Not one nice thing to say about it while this process was working it's way through Congress.

President Obama is all over the place, 24/7. The left doesn't have his back on one single thing. And they never have. btw, didn't the President help the people in California with their foreclosures to the tune of BILLIONS?

Dang Pat!

There you go again pointing out the truth to the tin foil hat crowd (and that applies to some of the lefties as well!) lol

And Gingerbread Mama - I couldn't agree with you more! Carville's turned out to be a weasel - guess that's what happens when you sleep with the 'enemy' for so many years!

MSierra - he was talking about health care today in Ohio. Go back and watch it.

MSierra, SF

Actually, a quick visit to RealClearPolitics or Pollster.com shows that, overwhelmingly, majorities or pluralities of Americans oppose Obamacare in poll after poll. The data is there.

The few polls showing support for Obamacare are at, near, or below those polls' margin-of-error.

Make the argument they aren't outliers.

I don't believe you can.

Hi Ron!

I thought Cantor was from VA? I could be wrong... anyway all American's should be asking themselves the question - What has the Republican Party done to enhance your lives or make America a better place for ALL?

*crickets*

Fiesty, correct Cantor is from Virginia, they talked about him this morning as being extremly ambitious, and that he gets frustrated with Boehner. Lol

Feisty and Gingerbread Momma:

I stand corrected.

No problem Ron! Easy to see how you could get the 'peas in a pod' mixed up! lol

Kevin Drum says California has been the victim of fantasy budgeting:

Californians are living in a dream world. Prop 13 slashed property taxes and nobody wants to amend it, even for commercial property. Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected in the middle of a budget crisis by promising to cut taxes. When that proved to be an unsurprising disaster, the voters approved billions in borrowing, making the budget situation even worse. It’s easy to blame Sacramento for this mess (and I do!), but the public has been complicit every step of the way.

The 20 cities with the highest rates of foreclosure notices were all in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona -- states with markets that got extremely hot during the real-estate boom, according to RealtyTrac's year-end report.

President Obama will continue his city to city tour, trying to do what he can with a country full of people who only knew how to live beyond their means, NOT PAY FOR IT, and then whine when HE isn't doing enough.

Just to add a little bit it doesn't make any difference that he's from Va. he's still sad to say in a safe district and the chances of running him out are slim and none

no jo, how about decreasing the payout currently for all right now and for all of those going forward? that way social security will remain ok and there won't be any issues. enough with putting things off to the younger generations to deal with. take care of it right now. what about that no jo. are you on board?

Glen,

Don't know what your retirement age would be, mine would be 66ish. I've got twelve years to make any additional adjustments I need to make, and I'm assuming that the funds won't be available to me, or will be available at a rate less than indicated in my annual statement. Reducing the payout right now would not be an option, it's an election year. Raising the retirement age would be an option, especially if it was designed in such a way that it impacted folks that still had a significant time frame prior to retirement. Social Security is underfunded given the changes in life expectancy ages, and a combination of reduced benefits, and increased retirement ages is probably inevitable. The other factor that actually ought to be in play, but is most likely a huge challenge, is the concept of means testing. Does Warren Buffet need Social Security? Doubtful Do I need Social Security, probably not as much as some, probably more than some others. The key will be finding a solution that impacts all, maybe not equitably, but all share somewhat in the pain.

Here is the problem with means testing: the way Social Security was set up to begin with. We are forced to put funds in, with the promise that they will be repaid. Renege on that, and more than funds will be lost. It willcause a complete collapse of the bond market, as the 'full faith and credit' of the U.S. will be called into question.

Now,I think that there is, in fact,a solution short of that. That is, allow retirees a choice of getting regular social security checks, or a lump sum of their and their employers' contributions, plus a reasonable amount of interest.

This would, in fact, offer more cost saving than any other proposal, as those who choose the lump sum would be ineligible for any future cola's. There would be,I believe, a lot of people who would choose that option, as they could invest as they chose.

It's an option that should be discussed.

no joe, no bo, nj

I'm retiring in 21 years, at the age of 65, but you telling me that just wait 5 more years, or pay higher taxes, Ok Let me See, first i know your closer to retirement than i am, so you could care less what happens to me in 23 years. i know you have grand children so i know your on the door step of retirement and i'm happy for you.

How selfish of you to say this. Oha just wait 5 MORE years. but this fits your profile, its all about Me(no jo) and screw everybody else. i got mine but you wait 5 more years for yours. I have made good money and i have paid high SS taxes for years, Hell NO i'm not going to wait for mine, i want my dam money at 65.why do you care this will not affect you.

No Jo for years since Nixon everybody knew that SS would go broke as soon as the main glut of baby Boomers retire, which i think will happen in 10 years. i think in 1954 the birth rate hit its height so in 2019 SS will be broke if not 5 years sooner, depending on how many retire at 62

No Jo SS payroll tax caps out at i think $150,000.00, so if you make 200,000 you pay the same SS tax as some one making 160,000.00. Mr. Bohner instead of making guys like me wait, or raising taxes on guys like me that make under 150,000.00, why not raise the income threshold on SS, so if i guy is making 500,000 per year he pays his fair share based upon his salary.

See these republicans always looking out for the rich and ready to screw the regular working guys.

My bad, i ment to say wait 3 years. but still why should i have to wait, NoJo no one is telling you to wait. it would be a Bit*h if i died at 69 years 10 months and then my money would either go to my X-wife or back in the fund.

THAT NOT RIGHT.

read the cbo report.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/CreateaPlan/how-long-can-social-security-last.aspx

It's on MSN Ginger.

Okay, that response is officially the most insane I have ever read.

You honestly believe that people now in their late forties will suddenly turn to a life of crime because they have to wait an additional 3 years to retire? You do know that for those in their 50's, the retirement age for social security is 67,right? so, three years is going to cause a crime wave of epic proportions?

Good lord, liberal hyperbole has reached new heights.

I said young people idiot. And the trend is already there. Young people are not going to work their butts off for wages that cannot keep up with cost of living to age 70. What other choices do you think threy have numbnuts. I see that you have few if any conversations with young people entering the work force today.

CA, you really think that someone who is going to "turn to a life of crime" is considering when they will be eligible for Social Security? Really? I hardly think that ranks anywhere on their list of "considerations."

Oh you bet your bibby Jill. Young people today are considering what their wages will be, if they can expect any decent raises, if they can keep up with the cost of living, how many hours they will have to work each day and each week, how much vacation time they can have at a regular job, if they can even afford to put anything away for their future, will they have to slave like their parents for wages that only gets them by from week to week, how much free time they will have compared to the generation before them. You bet your a** they are thinking of all these things including the day they can leave the rat race. Give these kids more credit than you do. They think of all these things, and right now, many are not pleased with their prospects. And if such pessimissm results in a refusal to work (which is happening among many of our young people) how do you think they intend to survive?

You as no joe need to speak to more young people before you even attempt to discuss this issue. And don't tell me you have. Your comment shows that you have not.

CA, I'm among those "young people" and NOBODY that I have EVER talked to has decided to "turn to a life of crime" because of their distant retirement age. Guess what, CA? You're the one not giving us much credit. You're basically implying that we're lazy and don't want to work for what we get. That is not true of my generation. Yes, I hope I have ample time to spend with my future family, and yes, I hope that I can put money away for retirement. But, guess what? I'm not going to start selling drugs to support my lifestyle if I'm having to essentially live paycheck to paycheck (which, at this point in my life due to my student loan bills, I am).

CA:

Man that is a crazy azz assumption. You honestly think that youngsters will turn to a life of crime because the SS age has risen 3 yrs?

BS Jill. You take everyhting personally that is commented to you on this blog. Your problem is that you think all younger people think like you. Well I have a clue for you. There are thousands out there that do not think like you or live in your form of a sheltered, but me life.

CA, where do you get your information on how my generation thinks? Seriously?

What kind of sheltered life do you think I've been living? While my parents were awesome, that doesn't change the fact that my parents are lower-middle class, and while I make a decent wage, a large portion of it goes to paying off the education that I strived to achieve. I'm not complaining about it, just stating the reality. Not all younger people think like me, CA, I recognize that. But those who are going to turn to a life of crime, as you say, are not going to be influenced to engage in that kind of lifestyle merely because the SS retirement age is raised. THAT'S the assertion I find RIDICULOUS.

I could just as easily say the same thing about you, i.e., that you think everyone thinks like you do.

What-you mean you won't be following CA's advice and selling illicit drugs in order to fund your retirement at 67?

My,my, will wonders never cease.

STEVE MAC, I'm with you. I, too, will be adversely affected by those changes you mention, but I am in support of them.

Your problem no joe is that you have no clue how younger people think. You see only three additional years and are talking about people in their 40s. I am speaking of your age group 18 -30 and can guarnatee you that they see 70 versus mid-sixties as the kiss of death. To them that three years is a lifetime.

Have you even studied the number of young people in colleges or universities today versus the percentages not attending. Have you studied the high school drop out rates across this country. Have you talked to employers telling you that young people today will not work for the menial wages that their parents worked for and that many are unwilling to work the hours their parents have put in on their jobs? Have you studied the work ethic of the younger people today. Have you asked kids in college and unitversities if they trust the stability of privately funded retirment plans or when given the choice would they pay a few more bucks in taxes to maintain the current retitrement age versus having to work until 70 what their responses will be? When you have done all that no joe then you can come back and tell me what will these kids be doing and how you think they intend to survive.

I'm supposed to believe you have done that, CA?

I don't.

What I do believe is that you set up an argument based on hyperbole and emotion, (rule 7); now that it has backfired by drawing the ridicule back on you, you are relying on rule2, (set up a test impossible to achieve).

Epic fail. Try original thought. The rules for radicals are no longer working.

no joe:

Studying facts before one opens their mouth is not a test impossible to achieve . That is unless the person claiming it is a test impossible to achieve is in fact the same who relies on hyperpole and emotion to argue a point. And that would be you no joe.

Also keep in mind that original thought does not preclude that those thoughts always coincide with that offered by the no joe's of the world.

The problem with your pal Jill is that any discussion, any topic, she automaticaly takes it upon herself to place herself and her status at the center of the disussion. Her constant use of I and me becomes tiresome as does her claims that because she thinks a certain way all others no matter who they are or where they live or what they do for a living, if they are alive or dead, thinks just as she does. Speak of youth in Soutehrn CA and Jill thinks she is the center of the discussion. Speak of seniors in Maine and that's Jill. Speak of some Bhuddist monks living high in the mountains and Jill is right there with them. One begins to wonder if Jill thinks the world centers around her.

Uh, CA...what are you even talking about?

Oh, I get it....you're attacking me personally instead of addressing anything I actually said.

Like I said, CA, those "young people" you speak of who are turning to a life of crime are not making that decision based on the SS retirement age, nor does the SS retirement age influence such a decision. Go ask a drug dealer why they chose to deal drugs, and you're not going to get:

"Well, I did a thorough analysis of what I could expect to earn over the course of my lifetime, combined with the time I would actually have for leisure activities. Further, I looked into the SS retirement age, and when I could be expected to become eligible, along with my expected benefits. You know, it was a close call, but given that I won't be able to retire until I'm 70 left me with no choice but to sling."

The reasons that people choose to sell drugs is influenced more by sociological factors than economical factors.

Bottom line is that your statement was ridiculous, so just move on from it.

Here's a crazy solution that I would go for:

Raise the retirement age for SS to 67

Scrap the tax code completely and go to a flat tax rate across the board at let's say 7%, the number can be different.

No tax breaks for anyone and I do mean anyone!

Scrap Congress's health care system and mandate they fall under the same system as the rest of the citizens of this country.

Finally, term limits for all members of Congress to no more than 10 years and a mandatory retirement at the above new retirement age for SS at 67.

Terry, Retirement is at 66 now and will be 67 in a few years under the current law.

The average SS payment in 2010 is $1164.00 per month ($268.60/Wk).

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Yes it is, raising it 1 year would entertain those who want to raise it and you could go to 68.

Again, I call for the flat tax rate no exemptions and scrapping Congress's health plan and force them to live with the system the rest of the country has to deal with.

Part of our problem is less money coming in, getting rid of a tax system that is overwhelmingly nuts would ease that problem.

Terry, Why not eliminate the income tax and replace it with a sales tax.

1. Encourages savings.

2. We will no longer care if anyone is paid under the table.

3. The rich will pay more because they spend more.

I have two concerns: Will this impact international tourism to the US and how will we police the “black market” that will develop?

Why would I take offense? All I stated is that raising the retirement age is obviously one of the options to consider when looking at ways to ensure the continued solvency of SS. There are other options, and you (or others) have mentioned some of those. It is likely that some combination of ideas, including raising the retirement age will eventually be adopted, political posturing aside, when we actually address the issue. We millionaires tend to not take our SS benefits btw, and those funds go back into the pool. God bless Eugene Debs!

(For those "progressives" who wonder who the hell he is...Google)