Posted on 01/17/2023 9:24:09 AM PST by 6thavenue
Republican Rep. Rick Allen of Georgia suggested last week that he would support raising the Social Security retirement age—a policy change that would slash benefits across the board—because people have approached him and said they “actually want to work longer.”
Confronted by an advocate in the Capitol Building and asked how the GOP plans to cut Social Security, the congressman responded, “We’re not going to cut Social Security.”
But seconds later, Allen contradicted himself by expressing support for raising the retirement age, saying the move would “solve every one of these problems”—not specifying what the “problems” are from his perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at alaska-native-news.com ...
Interesting that politics is an exception. 90-year-old senators, and they even run for reelection!
But there can be a very useful purpose to having older people as politicians. Society needs to have some people in leadership with some social and historical memory. Journalism has gotten worse under too many young reporters have been more entertained, on the whole, than informed. And these days use phrases like “modern computers.”
Because anything before the 1990s is a hazy, pre-Modern era to them. What they know about important events from that era they learned in a movie or got the propaganda about it in school or college.
And SS duns you on your payout if you do.
Ok fine. Kindly refund everything I’ve contributed to the SS fund and we’ll call it even.
Will this congressman reduce his federal government pension?
“Is the House GOP really going to push for raising the Social Security age, so seniors will be too old to get hired - but not old enough to collect Social Security?”
My company is encouraging employees to take retirement at age 56. It can be challenging for those individuals to secure high-paying employment opportunities with other companies. It is a budget/cost trick for a company to save money by replacing older employees.
Employers tend to prefer hiring younger workers at lower salaries, rather than retaining older employees with higher salaries.
“But folks pay into Social Security for their entire working careers. They expect the promise to be kept.”
The Supreme Court in cases that had to review the Social Security law has said more than once Social Security has NO “guarantee” - NONE.
No aspect of the Social Security benefit is “guaranteed”, not the specific benefit amount, the retirement age needed for a maximum benefit, the formula for the benefit or the cost of living adjustment. Everything is able to be adjusted by additional acts of Congress, and in fact Congress has enacted many changes over the years.
People always complain that any adjustment of Social Secuirty is intended to “take away Social Security”. That is historically and currently political scare tactics most of all.
SS would be solvent (or much longer than now) if they’d stop this SSDI abuse (and the SSI abuse it administers.)
How about they look at crooks on SSI who could work but choose not to? I would support a bounty on turning in people who are cheating at being disabled.
They are far more comfortable screwing old people who are going to die soon than they are the young people on SSDI, SSI, Section 8, EITC and Advanced Payment EITC, AFDC, TANF, SNAP and all the rest of the crap give-aways Democrats give non-workers (and soon to be illegals).
Well, the ones telling him that are probably his fellow congress critters and politicians who never retire until they’re carried out feet first, so there’s that...
SS is an accounting game—to call it “solvent” assumes a whole bunch of stuff which is just not true.
See post 12.
This is all funny money.
“Solvent” is a term that applies to going concerns—social security is a pure Ponzi scheme—it will “collapse” when the government collapses—not one day before and not one day after....
It is. It is also unconstitutional and socialist in nature.
And it is defended tooth and nail by supposed "conservatives" on a supposedly "conservative" discussion forum.
America is doomed ...
I’m considering calling Rep Rick Allen’s office (202) 224-3121 and RESPECTFULLY asking if he has a list of companies that will hire seniors at middle class wages, or even hire them at all. If he knows of such companies, great, because I have friends and relatives who would love to apply!
1. Young people, up to the age of 26.
2. Retirees, age 65 and older.
They established this business model for no other reason than to get around employer health insurance mandates under ObamaCare and state law.
The younger workers are covered under their parents’ health plans. The older workers are on Medicare.
It’s ludicrous that any of this would even be a consideration in running a business … but that’s America today.
I live modestly, have no desire to spend for vacations, fancy foods at home, I rarely eat out or buy new clothes. I own my home and auto, and drive little. Medicare and supplemental insurance cover most of the medical costs (knock wood) though that could certainly change.
The $31,000/year I receive, net, covers my expenses, even including the costs for my one hobby - constructing a HO scale model railroad, which isn't cheap for buying tools, materials and components.
That's how it looks today and for the last several years. I do fully realize tomorrow could bring a new reality. We'll see...
Nothing is stopping us from working longer if we want to. Hell, all the Walmart greeters are late 60’s and 70’s.
I agree with your post.
However, the key word in my post was “expect”. Folks expect to get what the were promised, even if that promise can legally be broken.
If the GOP wants to mess around with Social Security, they are free to do so. And it might even help the country. But it will also mint many more Democrats.
“Social Security is a classic Ponzi scheme:”
Just like every other government expenditure, even the Defense Department and the pay for Marines, Army and Navy. No government program, pension or payroll can continue unless tax money keeps flowing in. If the money stops coming in - like a Ponzi scheme that runs out of “investors” - the payments/benefits/salaries/appropriations would have to stop.
Interesting business plan!
Social Security is a nation’s poison pill.
It guarantees that the nation will collapse financially—all the rest is timing and details.
Once taken there is no antidote.
The symptoms can be tinkered with at great political cost, but at the end of the day the nation disappears in the dust-bin of history.
The issue is not “when will social security be insolvent”—that is irrelevant.
The issue is when the US .gov becomes unable to generate enough cash (that will be accepted by creditors) to pay its bills.
That collapse may be a few years off or a few decades off—but it is coming as certainly as the sun rises in the morning.
No currency lasts forever.
No nation lasts forever.
That is the ultimate flaw in “social security”—and tinkering won’t fix it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.