GOP Senators May Make 69 Retirement Age (eligibility for Social Security)

Washington Post ^ | June 14, 2005 | DAVID ESPO

[cherry]

I predict a massive demonrat take-over when these clowns get thru....

they will lose every voter under age 55 who doesn't have a fat govt pension that stands to lose everything by these stupid actions...

why don't they just take SS from all income levels and let that be that....

....no, they would rather punish the working classes.....

they won't get my vote...I'll vote my pocketbook on this issue because the govt leaves me no choice.....

[Fledermaus]

Who cares about that crap? Social Security's problems are 100 fold.

I just want it to stop and let me keep my dang money. I don't want any of their stinkin' benefits that are just "promised" by lying politicians of any party. And I've always known they were going to renege on my age group (mid 40's) anyway.

It's a failed socialist program and I'm tired of being forced in a supposed "free country" to pay into a lie with money I could stick in jars and bury in the back yard and be better off at 70 than with any social insecurity used to line the pockets of pork addicted jerks.

But let's go ahead and add your pet peeves in the mix anyway and tell these jerks to STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY. But we can't seem to get enough idiots off their butts to vote them out of office. They seem to be too busy screaming at Michael Jackson or watching American Idol.

[PISANO]

I believe this would be fair:

Retirement AGE

62=25%

65/66=50%

69=75%

72=100%

And the AMOUNT does NOT go up when you reach the next age level but stays constant throughout your life except for a 5% raise across the board every 3 years.

Hell would freeze over first!!

[537cant be wrong]

painfully true,
but the way you pointed it out is funny as all get out.

[537cant be wrong]

just change jobs.

come on, there are only so many wal-mart greeter jobs to go around.
on a sound investment thought, with everyone vying for the job, an investment in dickie apparel would be wise.

[SittinYonder]

There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much.

Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades.

Do you know who said that?

[SittinYonder]

AzaleaCity ... I think there's a list you should be on.

[Reverend Bob]

Yes. The social security reform act (of 1983, I think) raised the age of full retirement for those born in 1960 or later. If memory serves the age is now 67 for those born in 1967 or later and 66 for those born 1960-1966. It was a bi-partisan deal between the Reagan White House, the Democrat House (Tip O'Neill) and the Republican Senate (Bob Dole).

[Hodar]

Raising the retirement age is just more of their pyramid scheme -- there were some threads about how when it was originally introduced, the life expectancy was much lower, so they didn't have to pay out much and not for very long, but they were taking in plenty.

A partial examination of the facts is as dangerous as fabricating your facts. Consider, when the Social Security age was set; the average person was expected to die within a year or two of retirment. Medical science has come an unforseen growth, we can now cure a great many of the diseases that killed the elderly just 20 years ago.

Thus, we are not only living longer; our medical bills as we age have grown at a non-linear rate as well. Now, let's add to this mix of escalating medical costs, a larger percentage of the population reaching retirement age, and the expectation that most of us will reach the century mark.

Somethings gotta give. The population is in DECLINE (there are fewer workers, supporting each retiree). Does the gov't really have any choice?

[DumpsterDiver]

This link from Social Security's website has the age chart. The good news (according to them) is:

"No matter what your full retirement age is, you may start receiving benefits as early as age 62."

[scars]

I think some FReepers are overreacting here.

1)Notice which paper this was in and consider that the headline may just be a little slanted.
2)Who are these "key" Republicans? Might be some weak RINOs that are only "key" to democrats and liberal leaning rags.
3)If this is a legitimate movement by the Republican leadership, they may be saying 'you know, if we can't have real reform, we may have to do something nobody likes'.

I think the Post is getting what they aimed for from those who take this as they intended. Anything to show the Republican Party is cracking up.

[DLfromthedesert]

It wouldn't affect old people. And if they're too old they can't think, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Well, whats more important to you, SS privatization or the judges.

Because the only reason, the only reason that Richard Shelby was able to defeat Jeremiah Denton back in 86 is because Denton had voted for the Reagan SS plan, and that formed pretty much the entire basis of the Shelby campaign that year.

[clintonh8r]

GOP Senators....

There are Republicans in the Senate? When did that happen?

[caisson71]

I work for myself and intend to do so as long as my health holds out. I will delegate the more stressful stuff to the younger ones but I'll be here till i drop.

[DLfromthedesert]

A lot of young people are FOR privatization. It is NOT a losing issue.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Congress critters should also raise their age to 69 for their government pensions...or more, for messing social security up so bad...

No. For them, it should be 93 ½ years of age. We also have to amend our laws that our crooked congress folks can only meet on the 29 of February for exactly 24 hours.

[537cant be wrong]

goodness, i might be safe then
already in my seventh decade and only 56 y.o.

hey! hows that work anyway?

[KevinDavis]

That is true...